PROCEEDINGS 

OF AN 

ECCLESIASTICAL COUNCIL, 

IN THE CASE OF THE 

PROPRIETORS OF 

HOLLIS-STREET MEETING-HOUSE 

AND THE 

Rev- JOHN PIERPONT, their Pastor, 

PREPARED FROM 

THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL AND ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, 

BY bfLT^ 

SAMUEL K. V LOTHROP, 

SCRIBE OF THE COUNCIL. 



* 



BOSTON: j 

FROM THE PRESS OF W. W. CLAPP & SON, 
1841. 



4$ < 



Entered according to an Act of Congress, in the year 1841, by 
Samuel K. Lothrop, 

In the Clerks Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 



PREFACE. 



M/ ^ W M/* M/ M/ M/ M/* M/ M/ M/* M/ 



THE difficulties in Hollis Street Society, owing to consid- 
erations which need not be be detailed, have excited not only 
in the city but throughout the country, an interest not usually 
felt in cases of dissension between a pastor and his people. — 
The proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Council, to whose investiga- 
tion the matters in dispute were ultimately submitted by agreement 
of the parties, have been watched with no small attention, and 
the result of their deliberations looked for with considerable anx- 
iety. The accounts, which from time to time have appeared in 
the newspapers, both of the proceedings of the Council and of 
the matters in controversy as brought before the Council, have 
not always been perfectly correct and it would be difficult to 
gather from them a thorough knowledge of the whole case. 

These and other considerations have induced the subscri- 
ber, at the advice and suggestion of friends, to prepare from 
the Official Journal and original documents, a complete narra- 
tive of the Proceedings of the Council and of the testimony pre- 
sented to that body, to support or invalidate the "Grounds of 
Complaint" preferred against the Pastor of Hollis Street Society. 
Leave to use the Journal for this purpose was obtained of the 
Council before it dissolution. For the record of the testimony 
here published he is indebted to B. F. Hallett, Esq. whose well- 



4 



known accuracy and ability as a reporter are a sufficient assur- 
ance of its correctness. His own notes of the testimony howev- 
er were almost equally as full as Mr. Hallett's, except that he 
did not put down the questions as proposed to the witnesses. — 
He has compared Mr. Hallett's notes with his own, and also 
with those made by the Rev. Mr. Pierpont, and he believes that 
what is here printed may be relied upon, and will be acknowl- 
edged by both parties to be correct. 



THE SCRIBE OF THE COUNCIL. 



Boston, August 20tk, 1841. 



CORRESPONDENCE 



Between Rev. Mr. Pierpont and the Committee of 
the Proprietors. 



[IN the course of the preliminary hearing on the jurisdiction, a 
mass of written Correspondence was introduced and read and refer, 
red to, which has not been before published. The bearing it has 
upon the arguments and the investigations, and the convenience of 
having it connected together, instead of being dispersed through the 
whole book, are the reasons for giving it here.] 



Boston, July 27, 1840. 
To the Rev. John Pierpont, Minister of the Hollis Street Meeting 
House. 

Sir:— 

The subscribers, a committee appointed by the Proprietors of the 
Hollis Street Meeting House, having heretofore presented to you a 
copy of the votes passed at a meeting holden on the 6th of April 
last, assigning their reasons for desiring a dissolution of your con- 
nection with them, now present to you the enclosed articles of com- 
plaint drawn up in pursuance of said votes, which the Society pro- 
pose to submit to a mutual Ecclesiastical Council. 

We respectfully request you to notify to us whether you will join 
with the Society in calling a Council to deliberate and decide there- 
upon. 

(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, 

JOHN D. WILLIAMS, 
DANIEL WELD, 

RICHARDS CHILD, r^stt^ 
WM. W. CLAPP, Committee. 

TIMOTHY TILESTON, 
WARREN WHITE, 
RUEL BAKER, 



6 



To Messrs. Joshua Crane, John D. Williams, Daniel Weld, Rich- 
ards Child, Wm. W. Clapp, Timothy Tileston, Warren White, 
and Ruel Baker, Committee of Hollis Street Society. 
Gentlemen: 

I hope I shall not be considered as making an unreasonable re- 
quest, or as pressing any request importunately, when, after the en- 
closed papers have been once returned to me, as they have been by 
one of your committee — my request not complied with — I again 
transmit them to you, with the suggestion that it is important, not to 
say indispensable, that the articles of complaint which, as a com- 
mittee, you prefer against me, should bear, upon the face of them, 
some evidence that they are the act of your body. The letter that 
encloses them is, it is true, signed by you. In that letter, too, there 
are articles spoken of, but the articles enclosed are in no way iden- 
tified with those spoken of, or anthenticated as yours, nor are they 
so connected with the letter as to show, on inspection, that they are 
a part of the same document; so that it would be necessary to go 
out of the paper itself for proof that they proceeded from you. In- 
deed, a marked difference in the color and appearance of the paper 
on which the letter that bears your signatures, and of the articles of 
complaint, that bear neither signature nor date, gives rather a con- 
trary appearance, viz. that the two papers have no connexion, or 
only an accidental connexion, with each other. 

Now, the articles of complaint, and not the letter enclosing them, 
are to be the basis of all subsequent proceedings before the proposed 
Council. They ought, therefore, as it seems to me," to be shown, 
by the signature of the Committee, to be the act of the Committee. 
At least, the names of Committee and the articles that they present 
to the council, should be so connected, in some way or other, as to 
obviate the necessity, which may occur, in some future stage of the 
proceedings, of seeking proof from without, that the letter which is 
signed, and the articles which are not, belong to and constitute 
one document. 

Will you have the goodness, gentlemen, by subscription, or in 
some other way that will be attended with the least possible incon- 
venience to yourselves, to enable Council, by inspection, to identify 
the enclosed as your articles of complaint against me ? And allow 
me to say, gentlemen, that I do not ask this for the purpose of delay 
or evasion, or from a disposition to quibble, or, yet, from on at- 
tachment to nice technicalities. It seems to me that ihese articles 
require some proof, upon the face of them, — which they have not 
now, — that they are the act of your body. When they are thus 
authenticated, I shall be ready, at once, to enter, with you, upon 
arrangements for a mutual Council, that shall be empowered " to 
deliberate and decide " upon them. 

Respectfully, your friend and servant, 

JNO. PIERPONT. 

July 21s;, 1841. 



Boston, Aug. 1, 1840. 

Rev. John Pierpont, 
Sir: — 

At your request, contained in your letter of yesterday, we have 
signed the enclosed articles of complaint. You will observe a few 



7 



lines added, which some expressions in your letter seemed to render 
proper to prevent misapprehension. 

We shall be glad to enter with you, as soon as possible, upon 
arrangements to submit the matters in difference between you and 
the Society, to a mutual Council for their deliberation and result, 
according to the established laws and usages of this Commonwealth, 
We are, respectfully, 
(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, 

JNO. D. WILLIAMS, 

DANIEL WELD, 

RICHARD CHILD, 

WM. W. CLAPP, 

TIMO. TILESTON, 

WARREN WHITE, 

RUEL BAKER, 



Committee of 
Hollis Street 

Society, 



To Joshua Crane, Esq.. 

Chairman of a Committee of Hollis Street Society, 

Sir:— 

The note of your Committee, dated 1st inst. enclosing the docu- 
ments, was received this morning. I lose no time in informing the 
Committee, through their Chairman, that I am now ready, at any 
moment that will be convenient to them, to meet them, — or such 
portion of them as they may authorize for the purpose, — in order to 
make the preliminary arrangements for a mutual Council. 

If it is agreeable to the gentlemen to meet at my house to-morrow, 
at 4 o'clock, P. M., I will hold myself free from other engagements. 
If any other time or place be more agreeable, will you have the 
goodness to advise. 

Yours, sir, respectfully, 

JNO. PIERPONT. 

4th Aug. 1840. 

Boston, August 4th, 1840. 

Rev. John Pierpont, 
Sir: — ■ 

I have received your note, requesting a personal interview with 
the Committee, to make preliminary arrangements for a mutual 
Council. 

In behalf of the Committee, I would in answer suggest to you 
whether it would not be more convenient to let the communications 
between us be altogether in writing, that all chance of misapprehen- 
sion may be avoided. Any proposition from you, as to the constitu- 
tion and selection of the Council, shall meet with immediate and re- 
spectful attention ; or we will make such proposition to you if you 
prefer it. Respectfully, 

(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, for the 

Committee of Hollis Street Society. 

Boston, 4th Aug. 1840. 

Joshua Crane, Esq.. 

Chairman of a Committee of Hollis Street Society. 
Sir:— I acquiesce entirely in your suggestion, that in the pre- 
liminary arrangements for a Council, the communications between 



8 



the parties should all be written. This will, as you suggest, sir, in 
all probability, prevent misapprehension by one or the other of the 
parties; and it will probably, also, expedite the proceedings, in which 
1 wish no unnecessary delay, inasmuch as it may sometimes obviate 
the necessity of notifying or getting together a large Committee, to 
answer a communication, or settle a point, that could be more con- 
veniently effected by an individual, properly authorized and advised. 

If I may be allowed, therefore, to suggest my own wish, it is, that 
the Council, in this case, may be a large one, and that it may be se- 
lected from rather a wide range of our sister churches. I should 
prefer that there should be as many as five or six, at least, selected 
by each of the parties ; hoping and trusting that both parties might 
unite in the choice of some one individual, whose age and standing 
among the clergy of our denomination would indicate him as a 
proper person, at once to hold the office of Moderator of the Coun- 
cil, and, in case of necessity, to give a casting vote. I am not now 
prepared to name one for this office ; nor do I suppose it necessary 
at this stage of the proceedings, that any should be named for it by 
either party. If the outline above suggested for the organization 
of the Council, meet the approbation of your Committee, and if you 
will signify the same, we may afterwards proceed to name, either 
party to the other, some one on whom both parties may unite, for the 
Moderator. 

When the churches and pastors are all named, by both parties, 
we may then proceed to fix the time ; which will, I suppose, of 
course, depend, more or less, upon the number and distance of the 
men selected to make up the Council. 

Please let me know, sir, at your convenience, whether the above 
outline meets the approbation of your Committee ; and, if not, to 
suggust any modification ; and it will be respectfully considered by 
Your obedient servant, 

JNO. PIERPONT. 

Boston, August 6, 1840. 

Rev. John Pierpont, 
Sir:— 

In reply to your letter of the 4th inst. received yesterday noon, I 
have, in behalf of the Committee to say, that we accede to your pro- 
posal that the Council shall be a large one, to consist of ten or 
twelve ordained clergymen, that is to say, five or six at least to be 
chosen by each of the parties ; it being understood that they are to be 
of our denomination, as you suggest in regard to the Moderator; but 
we think it will be best to leave it to the Council in the usual way, when 
assembled, to appoint such one of their members for a Moderator as 
they shall deem best ; and we also think that in selecting the Coun- 
cil, it will not be necessary to take a very wide range. In order to 
obviate the manifest inconveniences which will attend the selection 
of a Council from distant parts of the Commonwealth, we would 
suggest the propriety of confining the selection to the Unitarian clergy 
of this city, excepting, of course, the ministers at large, or if you 
please, we are willing that the whole of them, with the above excep- 
tion, should be taken as a mutual Council, to act as mentioned in the 
letter of the Committee of the 1st of August inst. 

Respectfully, 
(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, for the 

Committee of Hollis Street Society. 



9 



Boston, 7th Aug. 1840. 

Joshua Crane, Esq.. 

Chairman of a Committee of the Hollis Street Society. 
Sir:— 

To the suggestion contained in your note of yesterday,— that the 
Moderator of the proposed Council should be chosen by the Council 
itself, at the time of its organization, I most cheerfully accede. I 
consent also that the Council should consist of six churches, chosen 
by each of the parties, making twelve ; — adding one, if you please, 
chosen by both parties, to make an even number; — thirteen churches 
in all to be represented, each by its pastor and one delegate. 

But the same reasons that led me, at our interview at my house, 
last April, to reject the proposal that the choice of the Council 
should be restricted to this city, — lead me to decline the same propo- 
sal now. I will venture, therefore, to make a proposal which, if 
accepted, will obviate both the fact and the appearance of a cc packed 
jury, 5 ' on either side ; and will, in effect, give us a Council, the 
whole of which is chosen by both parties. It is this: 

On a day next week, that shall be agreed upon by both parties — 
(any day after Tuesday — before which day I expect to be out of 
town, a part of three days) — each party shall find, in the Post Office, 
a note from the other, containing a list of twelve Unitarian churches; 
and, from the list thus received, the receiving party shall choose six; 
making twelve churches. If any one church happen to be named 
by both parties, viz. shall be upon both lists, which will reduce 
the number chosen to eleven, then each party shall name to the 
other two more, of which each party shall choose one ; which will 
complete the Council, making the uneven number of thirteen. But 
if no church happens to be placed upon the lists first offered by both 
parties, then, if you please, let the Council consist of the twelve 
churches that are chosen. Should any church invited decline the 
invitation, then, the party first naming that church shall name two 
others, of which the opposite party shall choose one to fill the 
vacancy; and so on, till the Council is full. 

If this proposal meet the approbation of the Committee, please 
notify me at your convenience, naming the day of the week when 
the reciprocal communications shall be taken from the office, and 
oblige Respectfully yours, 

JNO. PIERPONT. 

Boston, August 13, 1840. 

Rev. John Pierpont, 
Sir:— 

I have on behalf of the Committee to express our regret that neither 
of our propositions, both of which seemed reasonable to us, have 
been found acceptable to you. 

We supposed that the Unitarian Clergy of this city without dele- 
gates would as a body be sufficiently large, intelligent and impartial 
to entitle them to the entire confidence of both parties. 

But as that mode is objectionable to you we have considered the 
one proposed by you, and our objection to it is that the Committee 
are less able than yourself to make a proper selection, from personal 
knowledge, of so many as twelve clergymen. 
2 



10 



We propose to you, instead of that, that from the body composing 
the Unitarian Association of Ministers each party should select six 
who with one delegate each (if you think that necessary) shall com- 
pose the Council, subject to the right of either party to except to any 
one or more named by the other party, for good cause. We would 
however suggest for your consideration the propriety of having a 
council without delegates as otherwise the number will as it seems 
to us be inconveniently large. 

We do not perceive the advantage of conducting our correspon- 
dence through the Post-office, but we shall in that particular certainly 
accede to your wishes if you still think it best. 

Respectfully, 

JOSHUA CRANE, /or the 
Committee of Hollis Street Society. 

Boston, 18th August, 1840. 

Joshua Crane, Esq.. 

Chairman of a Committee of Hollis Street Society. 

Sir:— 

The suggestion, in my note of the 7th, as to making the Post-office 
the medium of the communication, to which alone it referred, had 
no other object than to secure to both parties the benefit of a simul- 
taneous movement, in order that neither might, in naming churches 
to compose the contemplated council, be influenced by the other's 
nomination. 

Upon the question whether the proposed Council shall consist of 
Ministers only, or of churches represented each by its minister and 
at least one delegate, I suppose there can be no doubt. The object 
of the Proprietors by which your committee is appointed can be 
effected only by means of "an Ecclesiastical Council ;" and this, in 
the eye of the law, is a Council of Churches. A ministerial council, 
or one made up of ministers alone, is not known to " the laws and 
usages of this Commonwealth" as a Council upon the ground of 
whose Result, the Supreme Judicial Court will ever proceed to dis- 
solve the relation of a minister to his people : — And, in all that has 
hitherto been said of an ecclesiastical council, I have supposed that 
a council of churches was, of course, understood by both parties. 

To your suggestion, sir, that if each of the twelve churches, of 
the proposed Council, be represented by its pastor and a delegate, the 
number would be inconveniently large, I need only, in reply, remind 
the Committee that the Council invited for my ordination consisted 
of twenty-one churches, each of them to be represented by its pastor 
and delegates, which, if they all attended, must have made the num- 
ber nearly three times as large as the proposed council can be ; — and 
yet, I am not aware that the number, in that case, was ever regarded, 
by the Society as an inconvenience. Were only my own feelings to 
be consulted, I would have as large a council to " displace me from 
my pulpit," as I had to place me in it. At any rate, I am not willing 
that, in the present case, the council should consist of less than 
twelve churches, the number upon which we seem to have agreed. 
I object not to more than twelve, but I should object to less. 

And now, sir, as to the main question, ' How shall this council be 
selected ?' which is the principal subject of your note of the 13th, as 
it was of mine of the 7th instant ; though I must express my disap- 
pointment, and regret that my proposal of the 7th has been declined, 



11 



since I cannot conceive of another that appears to me so perfectly 
equitable, yet, as I am reluctant to insist upon a proposal that ap- 
pears seriously objectionable to the other party, or to appear disposed 
to throw stumbling-blocks in our way towards a Council, I waive 
that proposal ; and proceed to consider the one offered in your last 
note; — viz. — " that from the body composing the Unitarian Associa- 
tion of Ministers, each party should select six, who, with one dele- 
gate each, (if you think that necessary) shall compose the Council, 
subject to the right of either party to except to any one or more, 
named by the other party, for good cause." 

To this proposal there is in my mind this insuperable objection ; — 
viz, instead of closing one controversy, it opens another. It throws 
open the question in each case, i What is " good cause ?" and to set- 
tle this question some other tribunal must be agreed upon. 

I will therefore make one effort more, which, if successful will 
give us a council that will meet the requirements of the law, and, so 
far as I can infer, from the second sentence of your last letter will 
not be far from the views of the Committee, as to restricting the 
choice of the Council to this city. The sentence to which I refer is 
this " We supposed that the Unitarian Clergy of this city, without 
delegates, would, as a body, be sufficiently large, intelligent, and im- 
partial, to entitle them to the entire confidence of both parties." — 
I will say then, at once, that, so far as it depends upon me, the 
Council in our case may consist of the churches in this city the minis- 
ters of which belong to " the Unitarian Association — it being 
understood that, of these churches, twelve at least, shall be repre- 
sented in the Council. — If not so many as twelve can be found in the 
city who will accept the invitation of our church, or accepting it are 
not represented, in the council, the deficiency may be supplied by 
future agreement. 

If this proposal meet the approbation of the Committee, please 
advise. Yrs. Respectfully, 

J NO. PIERPONT. 

Boston, August 20th, 1840. 

Rev. John Pierpont, 
Sir:— 

The Committee are happy to be able to agree to your last proposi- 
tion, viz. That the Council shall be composed of the Ministers in this 
city who belong to the Unitarian Association, the same being not less 
than twelve, each Minister to be accompanied by one delegate from 
his church. 

The following churches are believed to be the only twelve thus 
elegible, viz. 

Rev. Mr. Frothingham's, 
« <•' Robbins', 
" " Greenwood's, 
" " Lothrops', 
" " Parkman's, 
" " Young's. 
" ,c Gannett's, 
» " Lowell's, 
" « Barrett's, 
" Ripley's, 
" " Motte's, 
cc cc Gray's. 



12 



If we are right in supposing these to be the churches to compose 
the Council according to your proposal, will you please so inform us 
and suggest the manner in which it will be desirable to notify them, 
and what time and place will be convenient to you for their assem- 
bling. Respectfully, 

(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, for the Committee 

of the Hollis Street Society. 

Boston, 21st Aug't. 1840. 

Joshua Crane, Esq. 

Chairman of a Committee of Hollis Street Society. 
Sir: — 

To your note of yesterday, agreeing in behalf of the Committee, 
to my proposal ; (viz. that the council shall be composed of the 
churches in this city whose Ministers belong "to the Unitarian Asso- 
ciation of Ministers," — the same being not less than twelve churches, 
each represented by its Minister and one delegate) — and requesting 
that 1 would inform you whether the list of churches given in your 
note is correct or not ; and suggest the manner of notifying the 
churches, as well as the time and place that would be convenient to 
me for the Council to assemble, I reply. 

First, that there are one or two errors in the list of churches, con- 
tained in your note, sir, in that, of the ministers at large, neither of 
whose names is on that list, one at least, Rev. Mr. Sargent, belongs 
to the Association ; and I rather think, though I am not certain, that 
the other, the Rev. Mr. Waterston does also while I am pretty 
confident that Rev. Mr. Motte, whose church is on your list, does not 
belong to the Association ; he having withdrawn from it, I believe, 
some years ago. But I will be careful to ascertain the fact, in rela- 
tion to all the churches, — or the Committee may — in season for the 
insertion of their names in the Letters Missive of the Hollis Street 
Church. 

Secondly, — in regard to calling the council, now agreed upon by 
the parties, it is regular, i. e. " according to the laws and usages of 
this Commonwealth," that the Letters Missive to sister churches, in- 
viting them to sit in an Ecclesiastical Council, should issue from a sis- 
ter church. Any communication, therefore, which your Committee 
may think proper to send to the Hollis Street Church, with a view to 
its action, in the premises, if addressed to me, as its pastor, I will 
take the earliest opportunity to lay before it ; or if you prefer that it 
should flow through some other channel to the church, it will be 
equally agreeable to me ; and whenever the church is ready to issue 
its letters missive, and the tenor of those letters is settled 
by the parties now in correspondence, — the time for holding the 
Council will be left entirely to the convenience of the church and 
the Proprietors' Committee ; both of which bodies will, I hope allow 
me, as to the place of holding it, to express a decided preference in 
fovour of Hollis Street Meeting-house. 

Yrs. Respectfully, 

JNO. PIERPONT. 
Boston, August 25, 1840. 

Rev. John Pierpont, 
Sir:— 

We have taken no advice as to the proper mode of issuing the 



13 



letters missive, and presume you are correctly informed on that 
point. 

We agree with you in the selection of Hollis Street Meeting House 
as the place of holding the council. As to the churches which are 
to compose it we will wait the result of your inquiries into the mem- 
bership of the clergymen, in the Unitarian Association. It has oc- 
curred to us that the Ministers at large may not be considered as 
settled Ministers having churches, so as to qualify them, with their 
delegates, to sit in a council. If Mr. Motte should be found to be a 
member of the Association, we have twelve without them, and we 
should prefer avoiding the chance of a question being made on this 
paint hereafter. Respectfully, 

(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, for the 

Committee of Hollis Street Society. 

Boston, 25th August, 1840. 

Joshua Crane, Esq.. 

Chairman of a Committee of Hollis Street Society. 

Sir :— 

On inquiry, I learn that it is as I supposed. Both Mr Sargent 
and Mr. Waterston belong to the Association, but Mr. Motte does 
not. 

I trust then, sir, that I shall not be considered as wishing to depart- 
certainly not without the concurrence of the other party — from our 
present agreement, as to the churches that are to be invited to sit 
upon the proposed Council, if I remark, that in as much as some of 
the members of your Committee are now enjoying the benefit of Mr. 
Motte's ministrations, and it may therefore be desirable to them that 
he should be of the council ; — in as much as his church is upon the 
list contained in the Committee's note of the 20th instant; and in as 
much as his, being the only Unitarian Congregational Church in the 
city, whose minister will be excluded by our present agreement, it 
may appear invidious that he and his church alone should be except- 
ed; — it will be perfectly agreeable to me that the same invitation 
should be extended to the Minister of the Twelfth Congregational 
Church, that is to be extended to all the others in the city, — provided 
there be no objection in the mind of your Committee. 

Yrs. Respectfully, 

JNO PIERPONT. 

Boston, August 27, 1840. 

Rev. John Pierpont, 
Sir:— 

In reply to yours of the 25th, (which came to hand after mine of 
the same date had gone forward) I have on behalf of the Committee 
to say that we agree with you that the Rev, Mr. Motte's church 
shall be invited to take part in the Council ; and it appearing that 
Mr. Sargent and Mr. Waterston belong to the Association we shall 
make no objection to them provided their societies are so constituted 
as to choose delegates according to the established usage, 
Respectfully, 

(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, for the 

Committee of Hollis Street Society. 



14 



Boston, 31st August, 1840. 

Joshua Crane, Esq. 

Chairman of a Committee of Hollis Street Society. 

Sir:— 

As it is now understood by the parties, what churches are to be in- 
vited, to compose the contemplated Ecclesiastical Council, I take the 
liberty of dropping this line merely to suggest, — since I wish no 
unnecessary delay, — that, as next Sunday will be the regular time 
for the administration of the Lord's Supper to the church in Hollis 
Street, any communication that your Committee may think proper to 
make to the church, with a view to its action upon the subject of 
issuing its Letters Missive, to its sister churches, may then be acted 
upon, perhaps, more conveniently than at any other time. 

Yrs. Respectfully, 

JNO. PIERPONT. 

Boston, September 1, 1840. 

To the Hollis Street Church: 

The proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House having requested 
their Pastor the Rev. Jno Pierpont to join with them in calling a 
mutual Ecclesiastical Council to consider the question of a dissolu- 
tion of his connexion with said Society, and Mr. Pierpont having 
consented so to do, and the parties having agreed upon the following 
churches to compose the Council, viz: 

Rev. Mr. Frothingham's, 

" <•' Robbin's, 

" " Greenwood's, 

" " Lothrop's, 

" " Parkman's, 

" " Young's, 

" " Gannett's, 

te " Barrett's, 

" « Ripley's, 

" " Motte's, 

" " Gray's, 

u {C Sargent's, 

" " Waterston's, 
the same to consist of the Minister and one delegate from each 
church, we the said Jno. Pierpont and the proprietors aforesaid by 
their Committee request you to issue letters missive to the above 
named churches in the usual form. 

JOSHUA CRANE, ] 
JNO. D. WILLIAMS, I 
DANIEL WELD, 

RICHARDS CHILD, Committee of Hollis 
i 



(Signed) W. W. CLAPP, 

TIMO. TILESTON, f Street Society. 
WARREN WHITE, 
RUEL BAKER, 
SAMUEL MAY, 
STEPHEN CHILD, 



15 



Boston, September 3, 1840. 

Rev. John Pierpont, 
Sir:— 

I herewith enclose a letter to the Hollis Street Church requesting 
the sending of Letters Missive to the respective churches the Minis- 
ters of which have been Mutually agreed upon to compose the 
Council ; leaving a blank for your own signature if you think proper 
to join the Committee in the application. 

Respectfully, 

(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, for the 

Committee of the Hollis Street Society. 



To the Hollis Street Church : 

The Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, by the under- 
signed, their special Committee having preferred articles or "Grounds 
of Complaint," against their paster, Rev. John Pierpont " to be 
submitted to a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, as reasons for dissolv- 
ing his connexion with said parish," and he having consented that 
the following churches, viz: 



Each to be represented by its pastor [or pastors*] and one delegate, 
shall be invited to sit as a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council " to deliber- 
ate and decide" upon the aforesaid Complaints. 

The Proprietors aforesaid, by the undersigned, their Committee, 
hereby respectfully request you to issue your Letters Missive to the 
above named churches, inviting them to convene as a Mutual Coun- 
cil, in the Meeting House of the said Proprietors, at such time as 
maybe fixed by the parties, "to deliberate" upon the complaints 
preferred by said Society against its pastor, and "to decide" whether 
or not the same be well founded, and, if so, whether or not they 
furnish sufficient reason for removing him from his pastoral office. 



Special Committee of 
Hollis Street Society. 



*As two of the Churches have Colleague Pastors, I leave it for the Committee to insert or 
leave out what is in brackets, as they may think proper. J. P. 



16 



Boston, 4th Sept. 1840. 

Joshua Crane, Esq. 

Chairman of a Committee of the Hollis Street Society. 
Sir:— 

Your note of yesterday came duly to hand ; and I regret that I am 
compelled to express any hesitation in complying with your request 
that I would lay the communication that it enclosed, before the 
church ; and I wish it to be understood that I do not now decline 
doing so, if, on consideration of what follows, your Commitee do not 
think it advisable to address one to the church of a different tenor. 

The communication enclosed in your note, sir, of yesterday* re*, 
cognizes the Council as being called to consider the naked question 
of the dissolution of my connexion with the Society: — whereas, you 
probably remember that, at the meeting of the Committee at my 
house, last April, I distinctly stated, in reply to a question proposed 
by one member of the Committee, (Mr. Childs,) that I would not 
consent to a Council for the consideration of the naked question, 
Whether, all things considered, the relation between us should not 
be dissolved? 

Now, if the Letter Missive, in its tenor, has a near conformity to 
the matter stated to the church by your Committee, which it ought 
to do, since the church is supposed to know nothing of the matter 
but from your communication, — it will seem to the Council, when 
convened on such a letter, that a question is before it, which I have 
never consented to have brought before it; and by its action upon 
that question — should it act — I should, therefore, never be bound ; 
nor could it furnish ground for any ulterior proceedings in the 
Supreme Judicial Court. And yet, should I remain silent during 
the action of the Church, upon the communication sent me yester- 
day, my silence would, or at least might, be taken for my consent 
that the Council should be called to deliberate and decide upon the 
naked question above stated, rather than upon the "Grounds of 
Complaint," and the specific charges enumerated under them; — 
which are the only matter to be referred to the Council, which has 
hitherto been the subject of our present correspondence. 

Should your Committee, therefore, insist upon sending the com- 
munication now in my hands, I shall certainly lay it before the 
church, for its action, next Sunday; — but, at the same time, I shall 
feel myself obliged, also, to make a communication, the object of 
which will be, to have the Letter Missive, when issued, conform, in 
its tenor, to the real matter upon which the Council is to act; namely, 
the " Grounds of Complaint," and the specific charges included 
under them. 

1 have sketched a communication to the church, which, I suppose, 
will do this ; and to which I cannot conceive that there can be any 
objection ; and should your Committee, sir, for reasons above 
stated, think proper, to substitute this — which is enclosed — for the 
one sent me yesterday, I will lay it before the church without any 
such communication from myself as is above suggested. 

l am sorry to give trouble in this matter; and, in truth, sir, I 
make this communication rather to prevent trouble than to give it. 

Should your committee, sir, think proper to exchange the docu- 
ments, as I propose, I shall — should you wish it — send back the one 
now in my hands, by the bearer of the other. 

Respectfully, JNO. PIERPONT. 



17 



Boston, September 5th, 1840. 

Rev. John Piebpont, 
Sir: — 

As I have to be absent from the city to-day I shall not have an 
opportunity to lay your note of yesterday before the Committee for 
their consideration in time to make a reply to it until after Sunday. 
Respectfully, 

JOSHUA CRANE, Chairman of 
Committee of Hollis Street Society. 

Boston, September 14, 1840. 

Rev. John Pierpont, 
Sir:— 

The Committee of the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House 
have received and considered your note of the 4th inst., and the 
paper enclosed therein. 

In answer to your remarks upon the legal effect of the result of a 
Council, called according to the form of letters missive, proposed by 
us, we would call your attention to the following statement of the 
law, as laid down in the case of Thompson vs. Rehoboth, 7 Pick. 
164. 

" In regard to the right to call an ex-parte council, we think that 
when asked to agree on a mutual council, the minister ought to have 
a general statement of the grounds and reasons of the call upon him; 
not in a precise or technical form, but substantially set forth, so that 
he may exercise his judgment whether to unite in a council or not." 

Having this passage in view, the vote of April 6th was passed, 
and we have furnished you with that, and with the paper entitled 
" Grounds of Complaint," as such a "general statement," that you 
might " exercise your judgment whether to unite in a council or 
not," and for no other purpose — intending to comply as nearly as 
possible with the established law and usage in such proceedings. 

We must decline agreeing to the form of application to the church 
proposed by you, as it appears to us to limit the action of the Coun- 
cil, in a manner not required by law and usage — and if the church 
should issue letters missive, tending thus to limit the action of the 
Council, we should not feel bound by such a proceeding, but must 
in such case advise the Parish to issue letters missive, in their own 
names, and in a general form, first asking- your concurrence. 

But that there may be no misunderstanding between us, we now 
ask you whether, considering the vote of April 6th, and the paper 
entitled " Grounds of Complaint," as a "general statement of the 
grounds and reasons of the call upon you," you do or do not agree to a 
mutual ecclesiastical council, to consider the question, whether your 
connexion with the Society ought to be dissolved. 

If anything which has heretofore passed between us, appears to 
you to bear an aspect different from this simple question, we desire 
it may be considered as waived, and that this simple question may 
be first settled between us. 

Respectfully, 
(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, for the 

Committee of Hollis Street Society. 



18 



Boston, 18th September, 1840. 

Joshua Crane, Esq.. 

Chairman of a Committee of Hollis Street Society. 

Sir :— 

Your note of the 14th was received on the evening of its date ; 
and I should have attempted to answer it earlier, but for the great 
difficulty I have found in giving it a construction consistent at once 
with the commission with which your board is charged, by vote of 
the Proprietors passed on the 6th of April last ; with every thing 
that has passed between us in relation to that communication, from 
its date to the date of your note now under notice ; and, at the same 
time, consistent with the ordinary use of language. 

Will you, sir, have the goodness to look back upon what has passed 
in relation to this matter ? 

On the 6th of April the Proprietors vote that, if I do not immedi- 
ately consent to a dismissal from my office, an Ecclesiastical Council 
shall be called, to consider the Grounds of Complaint, against, and 
dissatisfaction with me, and determine whether the pastoral relation 
between the Society and myself ought to exist any longer. By 
another vote your committee was raised, and, among other things, 
empowered to draw up " Articles of Complaint" against me, in due 
form, in order that they may be laid before the Council when con- 
vened, and to serve me with a copy of them. 

On the 17th of April, in conformity to arrangements between the 
parties, the committee and myself had a personal interview at my 
house, during which, and after I had refused to consent to a dismissal 
from my office, the question was proposed to me by one member of 
the Committee, Mr. Richards Child, whether I would consent to go 
before a Mutual Council, upon the naked question, whether, all 
things considered, the relation between us ought not to be dissolved. 
To this question I replied promptly and distinctly in the negative. — 
That question and answer cannot, I think, be forgotten by any one 
of the Committee. If it be, there are enough who do remember it, 
to establish the fact of both the question and answer, before any 
tribunal. If the reason of the answer be forgotten — which I think 
it will hardly be — it was briefly this — The Proprietors, by their votes 
of the 6th of April, had brought charges against me, seriously affect- 
ing my moral character, — nay, if true, utterly destructive of it, — 
and those charges were then spread upon the Records of the Society. 
They must be either substantiated or refuted; and, were we to go 
together before a Mutual Council, upon the simple question of the 
dissolution of my relation to the Society, it would be impossible for 
me to compel the adverse party to bring their charges before the 
Council; or, they might be formally waived, before the Council, 
while they remained unretracted and unrefuted, upon the Records of 
the Society, For this reason I therefore insisted upon a specification 
of the charges that the Proprietors meant to lay before the Council. 
This, the law, to which you refer me, shows that I had a right to 
do. Upon the law there declared, I siood and still stand, in demand- 
ing a general statement of every charge which the proprietors in- 
tended to lay before the Council: — a general, — a substantial state- 
ment; not a precise and technical statement, with all the circumstan- 
ces of time and place, as in a formal legal process; — but one in which 
all the material facts shall be set forth — leaving the when and where, 



19 



mid other circumstances, to be brought out in evidence, as they will 
be required to be, on trial before the Council. This specification of 
the Proprietors, charges or articles of complaint I demanded, before 
I could or did agree to go before a Mutual Council. I needed it to 
direct my judgement in deciding the question whether I would go or 
not. And it is upon the basis of that understanding, and that law, 
that the " Grounds of Complaint," have been preferred against me, 
which the Committee themselves tell me are to be submitted to a 
Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, as reasons for dissolving my connex- 
ion with the Parish." In their note of July 27th, enclosing those 
" grounds of complaint," and referring to them, the Committee speak 
of them as assigning the reasons for desiring a dissolution of my 
connexion with the Society, and request me to notify them whether 
I will join the Society in calling a Council £c to deliberate and decide 
thereupon:' 1 '' — that is, upon the Grounds of Complaint, and the 
specific allegations embraced or substantially set forth under them. 

This I have agreed to do. Upon this ground, and upon no other, 
have I agreed to go with you, and you with me, before a Council. — 
We have agreed upon the churches to compose this Council. At my 
suggestion your Committee have requested the church in Hollis 
Street to issue its Letters Missive to those of its sister churches which 
the parties have agreed upon as the Council that is " to deliberate 
and decide upon the Grounds of Complaint prepared against me, as 
reasons for a dissolution of my relation to the Society. But in the 
application of the Committee to the church, no notice is taken what- 
ever of these Articles of Complaint, and it is stated that the Propri- 
etors have asked me, and that I have agreed, to join with them in 
calling a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council to consider the question of a 
dissolution of my connexion with the Society. If this means that I 
have agreed to unite in calling a Council upon the naked, or as it is 
called in your note of the 14th "the simple question" — when have 
I agreed — where have 1 agreed, as your note to the church says that 
I have agreed ? That I refused thus to unite is a fact that is capable 
of proof and will not be forgotten. I ask again, when and where 
have I thus agreed ? If I have ever done this, let my agreement be 
produced. Though the note of the Committee to which I am now- 
replying seems to me to favor it, I am yet unwilling to admit the 
idea of an attempt, on their part, to slide ©r push rae off from the 
ground upon which I have agreed to stand with them, and they have 
agreed to stand with me, before a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council; and 
to place me upon ground upon which I have not only not agreed, but 
most distinctly refused to stand. 

If, however, the Committee in their application to the church, to 
issue Letters Missive, mean to state the simple fact, that ihe Propri- 
etors, by their Committee, have preferred against me certain Grounds 
or Articles of Complaint, to be submitted to a Mutual Ecclesiastical 
Council, as reasons for dissolving my connexion with the Society; — 
that they have requested me to unite with them in calling such a 
Council; and that I have agreed so to do, why not state that fact? 
Why not make it patent upon the face of their request, so that the 
church may make it apparent upon the face of its Letters Missive, 
without being obliged to learn what is the matter that has been 
agreed upon by the parties, by reference to the original documents, 
by which the parties have mutually contracted and bound themselves. 



20 



From what I have now said, sir, you will probably infer my ans- 
wer to your question, " whether, considering the vote of April 6th, 
and the paper entitled £c Grounds of Complaint" as a general state- 
ment of the grounds and reasons of the call upon you, you do or do 
not agree to a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council to consider the question 
whether your connexion with the Society ought to be dissolved." — 
My answer is this: — If, by your question, you mean to ask me, 
whether, considering the papers to which you refer, merely as proofs 
or statements that there are grounds of complaint against me, and 
reasons why the relation between us should be dissolved, I agree to 
unite with you in calling a Council which shall be empowered to 
pass by all, — or any of all — the Articles or Grounds of Complaint, 
contained in the note of the Committee, under date 27th July last, 
and enter upon the consideration of the simple question, whether, 
all things considered, that may be brought before it, my relation to 
the Society ought to be dissolved — if this be the meaning of your 
question, I answer as distinctly now, as I did answer last April — No. 

But if, by the question, you mean to ask whether I will agree to a 
Mutual Ecclesiastical Council to consider and decide upon the ques- 
tion whether a dissolution of my connexion with the Society ought 
to take place upon the grounds of the Articles of Complaint which 
the proprietors, by their Committee, have preferred against me as 
reasons for the dissolution of my pastoral relation to the Society, I 
answer — Yes. To a Council for that purpose, and limited to that 
province, I have already agreed; and let me add — so, Gentlemen 
Proprietors, have you. By my agreement I feel myself bound. — 
The Proprietors w r ill say, through their Committee, whether they 
feel themselves bound by theirs. 

To the last paragraph, sir, of your letter of the 14th which says 
that if any thing which has heretofore passed between us, appears 
to me to bear any aspect different from the simple question — (i. e. 
the simple question whether my connexion with the Society ought 
to be dissolved) you desire it may be considered as waived, and that 
this simple question may be first settled between us; — I reply 

Sir, that "simple question" was settled between us, at my house, 
on the 17th of last April; and settled so definitively that it is matter 
of surprise that at this time, or any time, by any one present at that 
interview, an attempt should be made to unsettle it. 

But, if there has anything passed between us, which appears to 
me to give an aspect different from that simple question, you desire 
that it may be waived ! Sir, what has there passed between us, be- 
tween the 6th of last April, and the 14th of the preseut September, 
that touches the point, and does not give a different aspect ? Refer 
me, if you can, to a single document from either party to this cor- 
respondence, which intimates that the Council, now agreed upon, is 
to touch that simple question. But you desire that every thing 
seeming to bear a different aspect, may be considered as waived ! 
What am I to understand by " waived" ? If by waived, you mean 
withdrawn, am I to infer that all the vague charges, that lie upon 
the Society's records, as the doings of the 6th April, are waived ? 
And that all the more definite and specific charges, or " Grounds of 
Complaint," sent me in your note of the 17th July, are waived ? All 
these have — or at least, seem to me to have — a very different aspect 
from the simple question. But if by " waived," you mean rescinded 
am I to understand that you desire that our mutual engagement to 



21 



go before the Council that, for the last six weeks, we have been 
agreeing, and have now agreed upon, may be considered as ivaived? 
This, if it is the meaning of the Committee, certainly appears to me 
as not only a departure from the whole ground taken in the case, but 
from the common use of language. I have heard of men's waiving 
their claims, or waiving their rights — but that men should speak of 
waiving their obligations, is something that appears to me as ques- 
tionable in language, as it is unquestionable in morals. 

No, sir, the work that we have been engaged upon for the last six 
weeks, is done. The matter to be submitted to the Council, is set 
down. It was furnished me by your committee. The Council has 
been agreed upon by the parties. Though the committee may de- 
sire — if indeed they do desire — that all these agreements may be 
considered as waived, I do not desire it, nor can I consent to it. The 
church has been asked, and has voted, to issue its letters missive to 
the churches named to it, by your committee, in its note of request. 
The church is competent to frame its own letters missive, as it is 
certainly, and equally competent to either of the parties, after the 
Council has convened, and been organized, to make any objections 
that it pleases, to the form of the letters missive ; as it will be com- 
petent to the Council, from the face of the documents in the case, to 
judge of the force of the objections. The church, in this instance, 
has probably intended to issue its letters, according to the request of 
your committee, "in the usual form." If, in this, there be an error, 
that error may be corrected. A single point only, — that of the time 
of holding the Council — remains to be fixed. That, I have submit- 
ted to the convenience of the church and your committee. AH other 
points are settled between the parries. The character of each of the 
parties is deeply involved in the trial. Let it not be said — as I learn 
that it has already been said — that I do not mean to go to the Coun- 
cil. I do mean to go. God giving me strength, I shall go. In this 
business, at least, your committee shall find no foundation for the 
charge of "breach of engagement," which they have brought — but 
not proved — against me. And I will not permit myself to believe 
that the men who charge me with being unfaithful to my engage- 
ments, will now show themselves unfaithful to theirs. 

Respectfully, JNO. PIERPONT. 

Boston, September 21, 1840. 

Rev. John Pierpont, 
Sir : — 

The Committee have received your letter of the 18th. Having 
taken the course indicated in their letter to you of the 14th, for rea- 
sons then and still satisfactory to themselves, they must decline en- 
tering into altercation as to its propriety. 

Apprehensive, for the reasons stated in our letter of the 14th, that 
a misapprehension might exist, we have, in that letter, explained to 
you our understanding of the nature and purpose of the " Vote " and 
" Grounds of Complaint," furnished to you — and we shall so treat 
them before the Council. 

You will choose for yourself, whether to consider the Council as 
mutually agreed upon to act upon such matters as may lawfully be 
brought before them, after the notice that has been given to you. 
As your letter of the 18th contains no direct answer to the question 



22 



proposed you, we must expect to find that answer in the course 
taken by you in appearing or not appearing before the Conncil, 
when convened. You state, in your letter of the 18th, that at your 
suggestion, the Committee requested the church to issue its letters 
missive — and that the " church has voted to issue its letters missive 
to the churches named to it by the Committee in its vote of request." 
You will perceive by the paper addressed to the church, and sent to 
you at your suggestion, that the request was not made by the Com- 
mittee alone, but by them and yourself. The words are, " We, the 
said John Pierpont and the Proprietors aforesaid, by their commit- 
tee, request," &c. We should be sorry to understand that you have 
presented to the church as the act of the Society alone, what was 
written and entrusted to you, to be presented only after having been 
signed by you, and as a joint request. 

Upon this subject, we now address a letter to the church, through 
Dea. May, to which we refer you. 

On behalf of the Committee of the Hollis Street Society. 

(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, Chairman. 

Boston, September 21, 1840. 
To the Church of the Hollis Street Society : 
Gentlemen: — 

The Committee of the Proprietors ot Hollis Street Meeting House, 
at Mr. Pierpont's suggestion, consented that the application for a 
mutual Council should be made through your body to the sister 
churches, selected by the parties for that purpose; and a written ap- 
plication addressed to you, in the names of both minister and people, 
was sent to Mr. Pierpont, signed by the Committee, and to be signed 
by him. Upon that application, we learn from Mr. Pierpont, that 
you have voted to issue letters missive, while, at the same time, it is 
treated by Mr. Pierpont, in his letter to us, as being the request of 
the Society alone. We presume that the church has not acted upon 
the application without its being signed by Mr. Pierpont, in the form 
in which it was signed by the Committee — for, being written in the 
names of both parties, it would be the act of neither, without the 
signature of the other. We request you will have the goodness to 
inform us whether it was so signed. Presuming, however, that it 
was, we respectfully request your attention to the terms of it, and 
that the letters missive may be issued in conformity with those terms 
and without any substantial addition or limitation. Any verbal com- 
munications or written correspondence that may have passed be- 
tween Mr. Pierpont and the Proprietors or their committee, or any 
statements of reasons for calling the Council, given to Mr. Pierpont 
for his own information, to enable him to decide whether to join in 
the call, are not, we conceive, matters for the consideration or no- 
tice of the church in calling the Council, but should be laid before 
the Council when convened. 

We object, therefore, to any reference being made in the letters 
to any such communication. And if the church shall decline issuing 
letters without such reference, we then request you to forbear 
issuing them, leaving it to the Proprietors to issue the letters, as they 
are by law entitled to do. 

Before any letters are issued, we should be obliged by being per- 
mitted to see them. 

On behalf of the Committee of Hollis Street Societv. 

(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, Chairman. 



23 



Boston, September 21, 1840. 

Deacon Samuel May, 
Dr. Sir:— 

We enclose a communication to the church of the Hollis Street 
Society, which we will thank you to lay before them as early as 
possible. JOSHUA CRANE, for the 

Committee of Hollis Street Society. 

Boston, 21st September, 1840. 

Joshua Crane, Esq. 

Chairman of a Committee of Hollis Street Society. 
Sir: — 

I have to inform you that the Hollis Street Church has voted to 
comply with the request of the Proprietors preferred by their Com- 
mittee, and with the request of the Pastor, that it would issue its 
letters missive, for the convocation of the proposed Ecclesiastical 
Council ; — and that the church committee, charged with the office of 
issuing those letters, have prepared them in other respects, and only 
wait now for the time to be fixed for the holding of the Council. As 
the fixing of the time has been referred by the Pastor to the mutual 
convenience of the church and the Proprietors, I respectfully re- 
quest that, at your earliest convenience, you will inform me what 
day it would be agreeable to the Proprietors to have named in the 
letters for the Council to come together, as it is the wish of the 
church, as far as possible, to consult the Proprietors convenience. 

Respectfully, SAMUEL MAY, for the 

Committee of the Hollis Street Church. 

P. S. The church would suggest the first Tuesday, 6th of Octo- 
ber next, at 10 A. M., as the time. If, however, the Proprietors 
prefer any other, will you please send a note of the same by the 
bearer. 

Boston, September 22, 1840. 

Deacon Samuel May, 

Chairman of a Committee of Hollis Street Church. 

Sir:— 

Your note of the 21st inst. is received. We shall be ready, with 
the concurrence of Mr. Pierpont, to fix a time for the convening of 
the Council, after other preliminaries shall have been settled. But 
your note contains no answer to the inquiries made of the church, in 
our written communication delivered to you to be laid before them. 
We wish to learn of the church, or through some one authorized to 
answer for them, whether the written application signed by us, on 
behalf the Proprietors, and delivered to Mr. Pierpont, to be signed 
by him, and then delivered to the church, referred to in our commu- 
nication to them, has been signed by him ? Whether the letters 
missive, which you inform us by your note are prepared, have been 
prepared in the form proposed by us, without any alterations or addi- 
tions ? And whether it is intended to submit them to us for our ap- 
proval ? Until we shall have been satisfied in regard to these mat- 
ters, we shall, as we have stated in our written communication to 
the church, object to the issuing of any letters missive by them. 

Respectfully, 
(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, for the 

Committee of Hollis Street Society. 

(Deacon Samuel May stated to J. Crane, on the 23d, between 



24 



twelve and one o'clock, that the letters missive " were issued day be* 
fore yesterday," the 21st — his letter of the 21st was received late in 
the afternoon, and answered early on the morning of the 22d. The 
letters missive were not issued until the 23d.) 

Boston, 28th September, 1840. 

Joshua Crane, Esq,. 

Chirman of a Committee of Hollis Street Society. 
Dear Sir: — 

Your letter of the 21st was duly received enclosing a communica- 
tion for Hollis Street Church, which was laid before that body yes- 
terday, being the earliest opportunity that has offered since it came 
to my hands. 

The church was fully aware that Mr. Pierpont has declined signing 
the communication you sent him on the 1st instant to be laid before 
them, for reasons stated; — but as the object of that communication 
to the church was to request them to issue letters missive calling an 
Ecclesiastical Council as had been agreed upon by the pastor and 
yourselves, — and as he made a request to the church simultaneously 
to do the same thing, though not exactly in same form, the church 
could not hesitate as to its action, and voted unanimously to issue its 
letters missive, which as you are informed has been done, — a copy 
of which I herewith enclose, — as requested. 

Respectfully Yours, 

SAMUEL MAY, for the 
Committee of Hollis Street Church. 

To the Church in Boston, under the Pastoral care of 

Rev. 

Christian Brethren: — 
The Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, having, by their 
Special Committee, preferred Articles or Grounds of Complaint 
against Rev. John Pierpont T the Pastor of Hollis Street Church and 
Society, to be submitted to a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, as rea- 
sons for a dissolution of his pastoral relation; and the said pastor 
having agreed with the said Proprietors that the following churches 
in Boston, namely, 

Under the Pastoral care of 

The First Church, Rev, N. L. Frothingham, D. D. 

Second Church, <c Chandler Robbins, 

Brattle Street Church, " Samuel K. Lothrop, 

New North, cc Francis Parkman, D. D. 

New South, <c Alexander Young, 

^ , ! (( $ VVm. E. Channing, D. D. 

Federal Street, E s> GanQettj 

, " ] Charles Lowell, D. D. 

West Church, ^ Cyrus A. Bartol, 

King's Chapel, " F. W. P. Greenwood, D. D. 

Bulfinch Street Church, " Fred'k. T. Gray, 
Twelfth Congregational Church, " Samuel Barrett, 

Purchase Street " " George Ripley, 

South Congregational " " Mellish I. Motte, 

Pitts Street Chapel, " Robert C. Waterston, 

And Suffolk Street, " John T. Sargent, 



25 



each church to be represented by its Pastor and Delegate, shall be 
invited to constitute the Council, to deliberate and decide thereupon; 
and the said agreement between the said Proprietors and the Pastor^ 
having been communicated to the church with a request that it would 
issue its Letters Missive, in the usual form, for the convocation of 
the aforesaid churches, as a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, and the 
church having voted so to do; — 

Therefore, The Hollis Street Church, does hereby respectfully re- 
quest you, by your Pastor and Delegate, to sit in Council, with the 
other churches named, to deliberate upon said Articles or Grounds 
of Complaint againt the Pastor of Hollis Street Church and Society, 
and the various specific allegations therein set forth; and to decide 
whether or not they are well founded; and, if so, whether or not they 
furnish good cause for removing him from the pastoral office. 

The Council will convene at the Meeting House in Hollis Street, 
on Tuesday the 13th day of October next, at 11 o'clock, A. M. 

Signed by S MAY ) Committee of HolHs 

f c DORR, i Street Church. 
And J. PIERPONT, Pastor. 

Boston, Sept. 'Hist, 1840. 

Boston, October 10th, 1840. 

Rev. John Pierpont, 
Sir:— 

It is with great surprise that after the correspondence which has 
passed between us, we learned that the church had, at your special 
request, issued letters missive in an unusual form, prescribed by you, 
and expressly disagreed to by us. This form is intended, as you de- 
clare, to limit the powers of the Council, which it was the purpose of 
those letters to convene, when both you and the church had been 
distinctly informed by us that we would not consent to any limita- 
tion whatever of those powers, other than such as is fixed by law 
and usage in such cases — and the church was expressly requested 
to forbear issuing any letters, if they would not issue them in the 
usual form and without any limitation of the legal and customary 
powers of the Council. That in the face of this explicit refusal of 
the Society to join in any such proceeding, the church should see fit 
to issue letters missive, and to state in them that they were issued at 
the mutual request of the Society and Pastor, equally moves our sur- 
prise and regret. That there may be no mistake about this, we call 
your attention and theirs to the correspondence. After the votes of 
April 6th, referring to various grounds of complaint against and dis- 
satisfaction with you— some of which were stated— declaring that it 
would not contribute to the welfare of the Society to have you any 
longer as their Pastor, and, in case you would not consent to a dis- 
missal, authorizing the calling of an Ecclesiastical Council, to in- 
quire into the grounds of complaint against and dissatisfaction with 
you, and to consider and determine whether the pastoral relation 
between you and the Society ought to exist any longer, and appoint- 
ing us as a Committee, among other things, in case you would not 
consent to a dismissal, to request you to join in calling an Ecclesias- 
tical Council, for the purpose aforesaid, to proceed according to 
the usage in such cases, and the more formal statement of grounds 
4 



26 



of complaint, under date of July 27th, had been presented to you, 
with a request to know whether you would agree to a Mutual Co'un- 
cil to deliberate and decide thereupon, you answer, under date of 
July 31, that you shall be ready to enter upon arrangements for a 
mutual Council " that shall be empowered " to deliberate and decide 
upon articles of complaint. Apprehensive, from this expression, of 
a misunderstanding, on your part, of our meaning, we answered on 
the 1st August, that " the matters in difference between you and the 
Society, were to be submitted to a mutual Council for their delibera- 
tion and result, according to the established laws and usages of this 
Commonwealth." No further suggestion was made on either side, 
as to the extent of the powers of the Council, except a reference to 
this answer for the like purpose, in our note of August 6th, until the 
churches from which the Council should be called, had been agreed 
upon. It having been suggested by you that it was proper that the 
church should issue the letters missive, we agreed without inquiry; 
and on the 31st of August, you informed us that any communication 
from us to the church on that subject, would be laid before it by you 
on the following Sabbath. We accordingly on the third of Septem- 
ber, addressed you a note, inviting you to join with us in a written 
application to the church, which we had signed and enclosed to you 
for your signature, if you thought proper to join in it. The applica- 
tion was addressed to the church in the names and at the request of 
both Society and Pastor. It stated to the church simply that the 
Society " had requested their Pastor to join with them in calling a 
Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, to consider the question of a dissolu- 
tion of his connexion with said Society, and Mr. Pierpont having con- 
sented so to do," and the parties having agreed en the churches to 
compose the Council, "we, the said John Pierpont, and the Proprie- 
tors aforesaid, by their Committee, request you (the church) to issue 
letters missive in the usual form." 

In your answer, under date of 2d September, you admit that our 
communication " recognizes the Council as being called to consider 
the naked question of the dissolution of my (your) connexion with the 
Society." You further admit in that letter, that " the letter missive " 
"ought" to have " a near conformity to the matter stated to the 
church by the Committee, since the church is supposed to know noth- 
ing of the matter but from your (our) communication." 

To the above admissions, we particularly request your attention 
in reference to the subsequent proceedings. In the same letter, you 
state that if we insist upon sending the communication, you shall lay 
it before the church, with another from yourself, of which the object 
will be to have the letters conform to the Grounds of Complaint and 
the specific charges under them, or, as an alternative, you propose 
a new form of a joint application, in the words afterwards used by 
the church in its letters missive. On the 14th September, (after a 
delay occasioned by the absence of our chairman, of which you was 
notified on the 7th,) we declined adopting your proposed applica- 
tion, on account of its tendency to limit the action of the Council, 
and informed you that the vote of April 6th, and the Grounds of 
Complaint, were intended only as the general statement of reasons 
required by law to be given to the minister, before he is called to de- 
cide whether or not to agree to a mutual Council, and that if any- 
thing which had before passed, had appeared to bear a different 



27 



aspect, we desired that it might be considered as waived, and that 
that the simple question whether, in this view of the matter, you 
agreed to a mutual Council to consider whether your connexion with 
the Society ought to be dissolved, might be first settled between us. 
Your answer of the 18th, was long and hypothetical, and contained 
no absolute answer to the question. If, however, that answer was 
intended to be in the affirmative, then the Council was to deliberate 
on rhe general question of a dissolution of your connexion with the 
Society — if in the negative, then no mutual Council was agreed upon, 
and the subsequent proceedings of yourself and the church, have 
been wholly unauthorized, and the statement in the letters missive, 
that a mutual Council had been agreed upon, was incorrect. In that 
letter, however, you inform us that the church had voted to issue 
the letters missive. 

On the 21st, we addressed a letter to the church through Deacon 
May, inquiring whether you had signed the joint request we had 
proposed, stating that without your signature, it would be the act of 
neither party, and protesting, if it had been signed by you, against 
the letters containing any reference to the previous communications 
to you, and expressly requesting the church to forbear issuing any 
letters except in conformity with our communication, and also re- 
questing to see any letters that the church might propose to issue. 
On the same day, in answer to our inquiry, whether you had signed 
the request, intended to be a joint request, Deacon May stated in his 
note of the same date, that the church had " voted to comply with the 
request of the Proprietors preferred by their Committee, and with the 
request of the Pastor, that it would issue its letters missive," and that 
the letters were already prepared, except as to the time of holding 
the Council. This answer being equivocal, we declined by our note 
of the 22d, agreeing on any time for the meeting of the Council, 
until our questions had been directly answered, and we objected to 
the issuing of any letters until we were informed whether Mr. Pier- 
pont had signed the joint request, whether the letters had been pre- 
pared in conformity with that request, and whether it was intended 
to submit them to us for our approval. To this, Deacon Samuel 
May gave to J. Crane, the subscriber, on the 23d, between twelve 
and one o'clock, a verbal answer, that the letters had been issued on 
the 21st. We understand the truth to be, that the letters had been 
printed on the 16th, but were not sent out until the HSd, certainly not 
on the 21st. On the 28th, we received from Deacon May, as chair- 
man of the Committee of the church, an official answer to ours of the 
21st, saying that " the church was fully aware that Mr. Pierpont had 
declined signing the communication" we sent to him, on the 1st, to 
be laid before them; but as the object of that communication was the 
ca'ling a Council, as agreed by the parties, and as he had made a 
request simultaneously " to do the same thing, though not ex- 
actly in the same form," the church cc could not hesitate as to its 
action, and had voted unanimously to issue the letters," and that it 
had been done. A copy of the letters missive was annexed, by 
which it appeared that the church had adopted the form prescribed 
by you, and expressly disagreed to by us — a form which limits the 
action of the Council to two precise inquiries, viz. whether the par- 
ticular articles of complaint furnished to you, are well founded, and 
if so, whether they furnish good cause for removing you from your 



26 



pastoral office. Upon learning these facts, and that several of the 
churches called had declined, and others were about to decline at- 
tending the Council, on account of the unusual and limited form of 
the letters, we on the 3d inst. addressed a note to the churches which 
had bepn called, stating that the letters in their present form were 
unauthorized by the Society, and that if the churches which had not 
declined, should meet under those letters, the Society would not re- 
cognize their authority. A copy of that communication is annexed. 

After this recapitulation of the correspondence, we think it re- 
quires no argument to prove that there was not, when the letters 
missivewere issued, any agreement between the parties for a Mutual 
Council — the Society insisting upon a free Council, to decide all 
matters in difference, which could lawfully be brought before them, 
and the Pastor insisting upon limiting the action of the Council to 
two precise inquiries. 

How the misunderstanding between the parties, as to the purpose 
of calling the Council, originated, it is immaterial to the present 
question, to inquire. The Society had explicitly stated, that such a 
misunderstanding of the agreement existed, before the letters were 
issued, and, as appears probable, before the vote to issue them had 
been passed by the church. For what reason it was that under such 
circumstances, " the church could not hesitate in its action," but pro- 
ceeded to issue letters missive as for a Mutual Council, in a form and 
for purposes to which the Society had expressly disagreed, they can 
best explain. The effect of their action has been to prevent some at 
least of the churches agreed upon, from accepting the invitation, 
and to oblige us to decline the further intervention of the church 
between you and the Society. 

In our letter to you of the 14th September we stated that "if the 
church should issue letters tending thus to limit the action of the 
Council, we should not feel bound by such a proceeding, but must 
in that case advise the Parish to issue letters missive in their own 
names, first asking your concurrence." And we give you distinctly 
to understand that if any of the churches and their pastors invited 
by the letters missive which have been issued as above should meet 
in Council in consequence thereof, they will act without any request 
or authority from the Society we represent, and their proceedings 
will not be sanctioned by the Society, but will so far as they are con- 
cerned be regarded as null and of no effect whatsoever. On the 
subject of a Council we shall shortly address to you a further com- 
munication. 

On behalf the Committee of the Hollis Street Society. 
(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, Chairman. 

To the Christian Church in Boston under the Pastoral care of 
Rev. E. S. Gannett. 

Christian Brethren: — 

The Committee of the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, 
received on the 28th September from the Hollis Street Church, a 
copy of certain Letters Missive, issued by said Church, under date 
of September 21st — and addressed to your church. 

The Society of Hollis Street Meeting House have not requested or 
authorized the Church to issue such letters. The Society proposed 
to their pastor to join them in an application to the church to issue 
Letters Missive "in the usual form" to convene ' c a Mutual Ecclesi- 
astical Council to consider the question of a dissolution of his connex- 



29 



ion with said Society." Their pastor declined joining in this 
application and the Society has neither made nor assented to any 
other. Understanding that several of the churches called to the 
Council by the above named Letters have declined, and others are 
about to decline attending on account of the peculiar form of those 
letters, so that the Council, if convened, will not consist of those origi- 
nally agreed upon, the Committee have thought proper to inform you 
that the Society will not be parties to any proceedings by the others, 
should they convene under letters issued without authority from them. 
Very Respectfully, 

JOSHUA CRANE, ^ 

JOHN D. WILLIAMS, f 

DANIEL WELD, | Committee of The 

RICHARDS CHILD, I Proprietors of 
WM. W. CLAPP, [ Mollis Street Meet- 

TIMOTHY TILESTON, ing House. 

RUEL BAKER, 
WARREN WHITE, J 
Boston, October 3d, 1840. 

Boston, October 13th, 1840. 
To Benjamin Rand and Franklin Dexter, Esq.s. 
Dear Sirs: — 

If notwithstanding our notice to the churches to whom the Hollis 
Street Church has sent its letters missive, any of the pastors or dele- 
gates of said churches should assemble according to those letters, we 
request you to say to them, most respectfully that the Society has 
heretofore expressly disagreed, now disagrees and never has agreed 
to the issuing of any such letters and that any proceedings under 
them will be without authority from the Society. 

We therefore think it unnecessary for us, or for you in our behalf, 
to enter into any discussion before the Gentlemen, if they should so 
assemble. Very Respectfully 

(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, ) 
JNO. D. WILLIAMS, 
DANIEL WELD, Committee of 

RICHARDS CHILD, V 
WM. W. CLAPP, | HoIhs Sfreet 
TIMO. TILESTON, Society. 
WARREN WHITE, 

Boston, October 15th, 1840. 

Dear Sir: — 

In obedience to the order of the Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, 
lately convened by Letters Missive from Hollis Street Church, I 
transmit to the Committee of the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meet- 
ing House, the accompanying copy of the Resolutions adopted as the 
Result of said Council, and ask leave to assure the Committee that 
1 shall be most happy to receive and attend to any communication 
they may be pleased to make in reply to the second of said Resolu- 
tions. 

With high respect and consideration, 

I have the honor to be, yours respectfully, 

S. K. LOTHROP, Scribe of the Council. 
To Joshua Crane, Esq. Chairman of the Committee of the Proprie- 
tors of Hollis Street Society. 



30 

Copy of Resolutions adopted as their Result, by the Mutual Ecclesi- 
astical Council convened October 13th, 1840, by Letters Missive 
from the Hollis Street Church, under date of September 21st 1840. 
1st. Resolved, That though in view of the documents which the 
Hollis Street Church have laid before this Council, we are satisfiee 
that there was, previously to the request made to said church to issu- 
Letters Missive inviting a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, an agreed 
ment between the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House and 
the Rev. John Pierpont, their Pastor, to call a Mutual Ecclesiastical 
Council and also to submit certain specific Articles of Complaint 
against said pastor to be deliberated and decided upon as reasons for 
the dissolution of his pastoral connexion with the Hollis Street So- 
ciety ; yet in as much as the parties at issue did not subsequently 
altogether agree as to the form in which the Hollis Street Church 
should frame such Letters Missive, and in as much also as the whole 
number of churches agreed upon as requisite to constitute the Council 
is not present, and in as much furthermore as the Committee of the 
Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House have by their Coun- 
cil declared that they will not be a party to any proceedings of the 
Council, therefore, this Council not perceiving that it is in their 
power to do any thing towards effecting the objects for which they 
were called, do now decline going further into the investigation of 
the case. 

2d. Resolved, That in view of the unhappy controversy which 
has now for sometime existed between the Pastor of Hollis Street 
Church, and the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, a con- 
troversy which the sister churches of this city can not behold with- 
out grief, the members of this Council are constrained to express 
their earnest hope that it may soon be brought to a termination by 
such measures on the one side and the other, as will produce an ami- 
cable settlement, and although precluded by the reasons signified in 
the former resolution from acting upon the questions submitted to 
them in the Letter Missive, or upon any other questions involved in 
this controversy, they yet, for the sake of promoting what seems to 
them most desirable, will so far depart from the usage of Ecclesias- 
tical Councils, as now in their associate capacity, to offer to act as 
Mediators, if the parties in the case, will in any way enable them 
to discharge so grateful an office. 

3d. Resolved, That the preceding resolutions be communicated 
by the Scribe of this Council to the Pastor of Hollis Street Church 
and to the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, with the 
assurance that this body will assemble again whenever it shall be 
signified to it by the Scribe, that he has received from both parties an 
acceptance of its offer of mediation. 

A true copy from the Records. 

Attest: S. K. LOTHROP, Scribe of the Council. 

Boston, October 15th 1840. 

Boston, October 23d, 1840. 

Rev. Samuel K. Lothrop, 

Reverend and Dear Sir: — 

We have to acknowledge the receipt of your note enclosing a copy 
of the resolutions of the pastors and delegates of churches convened 
by certain letters missive sent by the Hollis Street Church. 

It was matter of equal surprise and regret that the church should 
have issued those letters, after our express dissent notified to the 



31 



pastor and church before they were issued. Those letters contain 
the unfounded suggestion that the Society and Pastor had agreed in 
requesting the church to issue them: whereas they had expressly disa- 
greed in the material point of what matters should be, by the terms 
of said letters, submitted to the Council. Although we supposed we 
had agreed with the pastor to call a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, 
and had furnished him with a copy of certain specific charges which 
we intended to submit to them, yet it never was the understanding 
or intention of the Committee, nor, as we were advised would it be 
legal or customary that the action of the Council should be limited to 
the questions, whether those particular charges were true, and if true, 
whether they alone furnished sufficient cause of removal; but our ex- 
pectation and intention was that the Council should^ from the whole 
facts and circumstances of the case which should appear upon the 
hearing, come to such result and give such advice as they thought 
the state of the Society required; before any communication, however, 
had been made to the church, the pastor notified to us, that he would 
not consent to submit to a Council the general question of the dis- 
solution of his connexion; and we notified to him that we would not 
consent to a Council on any other terms. And when we discovered 
that it was the intention of the pastor and church to limit the power 
of the Council, as they did, we, on the part of the Proprietors, for- 
bade the issuing of such letters. 

We were also surprised to learn that, after we had notified this 
disagreement to the sister churches, the Committee of the Hollis 
Street Church, by letter to them, denies our authority to act, in that 
matter, for the Proprietors, (though they and the pastor had recog- 
nized that authority in the corrrespondence) — and gave the churches 
to understand that the letters missive had been regularly issued by 
agreement of parties. We trust that considering these circumstan- 
ces the pastors and delegates will not impute it to any want of frank- 
ness or of care on our part that they were thus unnecessarily called to- 
gether. 

We beg leave through you to assure the Pastors and Delegates who 
assembled under the letters missive that we duly appreciate the kind 
and christian feelings which have prompted them to offer themselves 
as Mediators in the controversy between the Proprietors and their 
Pastor, and that on behalf of tbe Proprietors their Committee de- 
clined to accept the offer from no want of confidence or respect, but 
because it is, as it always has been, since the vote appointing us as 
their Committee was passed, the intention of the Proprietors to 
have an Ecclesiastical Council convened in the usual way and with 
the usual powers, whose doings may be recognized as such by the 
courts of law; and we do not feel at liberty to depart from the wishes 
of the Proprietors expressed in their votes. 



With great respect, 



We are your obedient servants. 



(Signed) 



JOSHUA CRANE, ^ 
JOHN D. WILLIAMS, 
DANIEL WELD, 
RICHARDS CHILD, 
WM. W. CLAPP 
TIMO. TILESTON, 
RUEL BAKER, 
WARREN WHITE, 



Committee of Hollis 
Street Society. 



32 



Boston, October 26, 1840. 

Rev. John Pierpont, 
Sir:— 

As a committee of the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, 
we again call upon )^ou, in their behalf, to join with them in calling a 
Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, to consider the question of a dissolution 
of your connexion with said Society; and we enclose a general state- 
ment of the grounds and reasons of this call. To obviate the objec- 
tions which, we understand, prevented some of the churches lately 
invited by the Hollis Street Church to sit in Council, from accepting 
that invitation, we have omitted from this statement certain of the 
subjects of complaint heretofore specified to you, and to prevent too 
narrow a construction of the rights and powers of the Council, we 
have stated the grounds of complaint now presented to you, in a 
more general form. 

If you should agree to join in a mutual Council, the Society will 
join with you in issuing the letters missive; but we desire it to be 
distinctly understood, that we cannot consent that the Council, if 
agreed upon, shall by the terms of the letters missive, or otherwise, 
be restricted from exercising all the usual powers of such bodies. 

We now ask you whether you will join with the Society in calling 
such mutual Council. 

If it should be to you an objection to agreeing to such Council, 
that the statement now furnished does not include certain of the 
grounds of complaint heretofore presented, and which we have 
omitted only to prevent a second failure in obtaining a Mutual 
Council, we hope this objection may be removed by our assurance 
that, when those matters shall have been presented to the Council, 
which, by law and usage, we have a right to present consistently 
with the statement now furnished, we shall be ready to proceed with 
the omitted charges, if you are willing to have them presented, and 
the Council are willing to hear them, leaving it to your option and 
theirs whether those matters shall or shall not be heard. 

Respectfully, 
(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, 

JNO. D. WILLIAMS, 

DANIEL WELD, 

RICHARDS CHILD, I Committee of Hollis 

W. W. CLAPP, f Street Society. 

TIMO. TILESTON, 

RUEL BAKER, 

WARREN WHITE, 

A general Statement of the Grounds and Reasons for the call made 
upon the Rev. John Pierpont, by his Society, for a mutual Eccle- 
siastical Council, to consider the question of the dissolution of his 
connexion with said Society: — 

1st. His too great attention to secular business and pursuits, and 
to popular controversies, whereby he has been led to neglect his 
parochial duties, and has become, in a great measure, disqualified 
for the suitable discharge of the same. 

2d. That he has unnecessarily and improperly introduced into his 
discourses, writings, speeches and lectures, topics and language 



33 



tending to disturb the harmony of his Society, and offend and irritate 
individual members thereof. 

3d. That he unnecessarily introduces into his discourses, writings, 
speeches and lectures, allusions and language unfit to be used in pub- 
lic by a minister of the gospel. 

4th. That he has alienated the affections and respect of a large 
portion of his people, by the harsh, contemptuous and unbecoming 
manner of conducting his differences and controversies with commit- 
tees and individuals of his Society. 

5th. That he has created and fomented divisions, discontents and 
animosities in his Society, by his want of discretion, moderation, 
charity and christian meekness and humility in his conduct, wri- 
tings, language and demeanor. 

6th. That he has been and is wanting in decorum, gravity, and a 
due reverence for sacred things in his discourses, writings and be- 
haviour. 

7th. That there is an irreconcilable dissatisfaction with him in the 
minds of a large portion of his Society. 

8th. That the harmony and peace that used to prevail in said So- 
ciety has been destroyed by the present connexion with their Pastor. 

9th. Because the controversy which now exists, and is likely 
to continue between said Pastor and Society, is a scandal and an in- 
jury to the Christian cause. 

10th. That the welfare of the Society requires that their present 
connexion with their Pastor be dissolved. 

(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, ) 
JOHN D. WILLIAMS, 
DANIEL WELD, 
RICHARDS CHILD, 

WM. W. CLAPP f Street Society. 

TIMO. TILESTON, 
RUEL BAKER, 
WARREN WHITE, 

Boston, October 26, 1840. 

Boston, Nov. 10th, 1840. 

Rev. John Pierpont, 
Sir:— 

The Committee of the Hollis Street Society are desirous to know 
when they may expect an answer to their communication, addressed 
to you on the 26th ultimo. Respectfully, 

JOSHUA CRANE, Chairman. 

Boston, 10th Nov. 1840. 

Sir : — 

To your note of inquiry of this date, I reply that I will trespass 
upon the Committee's patience not longer than they drew upon 
mine ; — even after they told me that, on the subject of a Council, 
they should shortly address to me a further communication. That 
announcement was made to me on the 10th of October. The "fur- 
ther communication " was received on the 27th of the same month 
-—seventeen days. 

I have no doubt that the committee will cheerfully give as much 
5 



Committee of Hollis 



34 



time as they take; and, if my life and strength are spared me, I will 
ask no more. Respectfully, 

JNO. PIERPONT. 

Joshua Crane, Esq.. 

Chairman of a Committee of Hollis Street Society. 

To Joshua Crane, John D. Williams, Daniel Weld, Richards 
Child, William W. Clapp, Timothy Tilestou, Ruel Baker, and 
Warren White, Esqs., Committee of the Proprietors of Hollis 
Street Meeting House. 
Gentlemen : — 

Your communication, dated the 26th of October, enclosing a 
" General Statement of the Grounds and Reasons of a call, made 
upon me by Hollis Street Society, for a mutual Ecclesiastical Coun- 
cil, to consider the question of the dissolution of my connexion with 
said Society," and asking me whether 1 will join with the Society in 
calling such mutual Council, was recieved the day after its date. 

I have given that communication all the attention that, for the 
time, I have been able — and, in reply, say — 

That I respectfully decline uniting with the Society, in calling 
such a Council for such a purpose. 

As it might seem dirrespectful, however, merely to send this re- 
ply, without assigning some reasons for it, I trust that you will allow 
me, as briefly and as distinctly as I canj to state my reasons. These 
two are the chief. 

First — The ec General Statement of the Grounds and Reasoas " of 
the call now made upon me for a Mutual Council, is quite too gen- 
eral. In the whole statement, there is not even alledged one single 
specific fact, for which I am accountable. In the whole circle of 
twenty-one years — the field over which you are at liberty to range, 
in raking up matter of offence — there is not one single thing that I 
have either said or done, so definitely stated, that, were it ever so 
falsely stated, I could, by any possibility, be prepared with proof to 
defend myself against it. Will you believe it yourselves, gentlemen, 
— and, if you do not, pray look over this ten-sectioned list of Com- 
plaints against me, and see whether I do not speak the truth, when I 
say that there is not set down upon it the allegation of a single thing 
that, in the last twenty-one years, I have either done or said, at any 
time, in any place, or to any body ! And yet, I am asked to plead 
to such an indictment, and to go before a Council and defend myself, 
under no other protection than your gracious assurance that only 
those matters will be presented to the Council, which, by law and 
usage, you have a right to present ! Gentlemen, " by law and 
usage," I have a right to know what you are going to present; — yes, 
every particular thing that you are going to present. Blindfolded, 
and with my ears stopped, I am not to be turned into a twenty-one 
acre field, where I am told that there are some ten assailants standing 
somewhere in the fog to attack me, and then encouraged to defend 
myself by the assurance that no weapon w ill be used against me but 
what by law and usage, my assailants have a right to present. No, 
gentlemen, I am not sufficiently comforted by this your assurance, to 
induce me voluntarily to venture in. It may be cowardice in me to 
decline such a challenge; but, really, in going against such odds, I 
must go with my eyes open. Your " General Statement " must spe- 



cify some particular thing that I have said, or done, or failed to do, 
some time or other, somewhere or other, and to somebody or other. 
But this, I say again, you have not done, in this your call. 

There are, I know, allegations enough, in general — allegations of 
defects and of redundances; — of defective discretion, moderation, 
charity and christian meekness; — of a deficiency in decorum, gravity 
and reverence for sacred things; and of redundant harshness, con* 
temptuousness, and other qualities not satisfactory to those who have 
forced me into a controversy with them; — as well as of other impro- 
prieties of conduct in general, by which, it seems, I have become, in 
a measure, disqualified for the suitable discharge of the duties of my 
office ! But I have a right to demand something more specific and 
definite than this, before I am called upon to answer— and J do de- 
mand it. 

There is, I admit, one specific statement on this list of complaints. 
It is the seventh on the list, and it runs thus: — "That there is an 
irreconcilable dissatisfaction with him in the minds of a large portion 
of his Society." 

If this be not true now, gentlemen, you can very easily both make 
it true, and prove it so. But, when eight of our sister churches have 
kindly proffered their christian offices to mediate a peace, and recon- 
cile alienated feelings between us, and when I have promptly and 
gladly accepted their mediation, and you have rejected it, am I to 
bear the reproach and the penalty, if this alienation is still irrecon- 
cilable ? 

Gentlemen, I have given you one of the reason that compel me to 
decline this, your second, call upon me to join you in calling a Mu- 
tual Ecclesiastical Council. 

My second reason is this. The parties to the Council which, in 
this communication you propose, are, already, under an engagement, 
each to the other, for a Mutual Council, to deliberate and decide upon 
certain specific " Grounds of Complaint, 3 ' preferred by yourselves, 
and "to be submitted to a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, as reasons 
for the dissolution " of my connexion with your Society. These 
were sent me under date 27th last July. The faith of the parties is 
mutually pledged to go before a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, upon 
the grounds, and for the purpose, stated in that document; and one 
Ecclesiastical Council is as much as I can consent to have upon my 
hands at one and the same time. 

You ask me, however, to go before a second Council, on the 
ground, if I understand it, of :-otne misunderstanding as to the object 
or purpose of the first. Even should I accept your call to go before 
a second Council, and, after months of negociation, a second should 
be agreed upon, for the objects stated in your present offer: what 
security have I against some other misunderstanding of the purpose 
of this second call; and against a third call for some other purpose, 
or upon some other grounds, and so on, ad infinitum? What secu- 
rity, indeed, but the faith of the men whose names are affixed to the 
grounds of the first call, and whose faith is usually understood to go 
with their names? To those grounds, I saw subscribed, not the 
names of John Doe and Richard Roe, as "pledges to prosecute," but 
something more responsible and substantial — the eight names that 
are at the foot of that paper, and at the head of this. Have I now 
to learn that those names mean nothing, when set to a solemn docu- 
ment? 



36 



Gentlemen, I beg you to consider that you are the representatives 
of a corporation — an immortal body. I am a poor mortal, and my 
years are running away. More than two of them are gone, since 
your first corporate action against me, in Sept. 1833. My time, I 
hope, may be better employed, than in playing fast and loose in 
this way, for your accommodation. I cannot consent, any longer, to 
be pushed from pillar to post, in these passes at arms; nor, in a con- 
flict that aims at more than my life, will I willingly be led, by those 
who have set themselves against me, up hill and down dale, merely 
that they may find out, at my expense, whether be stronger the gods 
of the hills or the gods of the valleys.* 

No, gentlemen, you must stand in your lot, and I in mine. Yours 
is the lot of your choice. Mine is the lot that you have assigned me. 
You, probably, have in your hands, my agreement to go with you 
before a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, empowered to deliberate and 
decide upon the " Grounds of Complaint" that you enclosed to me 
under date 27th of last July. I certainly have in my hands your 
agreement to that effect. W e have agreed of how many churches 
that Council shall consist, what churches shall be invited to compose 
it, and where it shall be held. From these agreements neither party 
can retract without the other's consent. I have not asked to retract, 
nor have I consented, nor do I consent that you should. I still prof* 
fer you that Council, I have endeavoured, with the aid of Hollis 
Street Church, and a I verily believe, to the best of our joint abil- 
ity, to convoke that Council. We have not succeeded. I do not 
say that you, gentlemen, have prevented the convention of that 
Council, though I believe that you have; and a part of it I know that 
you prevented. 

Since, then, one of the parties has failed in getting together, in 
Council, the churches agreed upon; let the other try. In your com- 
munication of the 14ih September, you give me to understand that, 
should the church issue letters missive in the form adopted by it, 
your committee would not feel bound by such a proceedure; but 
must^ in such case, advise the parish to issue letters missive in their 
own names, first asking my concurrence. This, you have told me, 
that you must do. Then, why not do it ? You may succeed better 
than I did. I am very well content that you should. We parted 
company, it seems, on our way toward the Council. Let each of us, 
then, go back to the point where we last stood together: — to wit, just 
before you addressed your note to Hollis Street Church, requesting 
her to issue her letters missive in our behalf; and, from that point, 
let us start anew. Perhaps, one or both of us may have learned 
something from the experiences of the last two months. I see that 
I have failed of getting the Council together. Eight only of the 
fourteen churches invited, came. I now step aside, and say, — Pray, 
gentlemen, do you try. 

Moreover, to whatever cause may be justly attributed the failure 
of the convention of the churches already agreed upon, by the par- 
ties, I am still ready to do all that in me lies, to give you a Council, 
upon the basis of our present agreement, (as to the number of 
churches that it shall consist of,) either by inviting the same churches 
again, or by going out of the circle of the Boston churches, as sug- 



* 1 Kings, xx: 23, 28. 



/ 



37 

gested in my note of the 18th of August, or I am willing to alter our 
agreement as to the number of the churches, should you regard that 
as an object. 

But, gentlemen, you will bear it in mind, when you come to frame 
your letters missive, that they must be framed in harmony with the 
agreements of the parties, that still exist and are in full force. A 
Council, agreed upon for one object, and convoked for another, 
when they come together and go behind the letters missive, 
in order to see to what the parties have agreed, may find that 
they have a very different work in hand, from what was laid out for 
them on the face of the letters missive. It is not by the letters mis- 
sive that the parties are bound, but it is by their respective and 
mutual agreements that lie behind those letters. The agreements 
remain uncontrolled and unaffected by the letters missive. Those 
agreements, in the present case, are binding upon each of the par- 
ties to them, till released by the other. I have not asked to be re- 
leased, nor have I, gentlemen, released you. 

In your note of the 4th of August, you suggest, gentlemen, that it 
would be more convenient to let the communications between us on 
the subject of the Ecclesiastical Council " be altogether in writiug, 
that all chance of misapprehension may be avoided.'''' But, in vour 
communication of the 10th October, you say — "How the misunder- 
standing of the parties, as to the purpose of calling the Council, ori- 
ginated, it is immaterial to the present question to inquire. The 
Society explicitly stated that such a misunderstanding existed," &c. 

Even writing, then, does not always secure us from misapprehen- 
sion. There is, it seems, " a misunderstanding between the parties." 
A misunderstanding as to what, pray ? Not, surely, upon the ques- 
tion, whether we have, or have not, agreed to go before a Council 
upon the " Grounds of Complaint," which, on the 27th of last July, 
you preferred against me, saying that they were to be submitted to 
an Ecclesiastical Council, " as reasons for the dissolution of my con- 
nexion with Hollis Street Society;" for we both understand that we 
have agreed to that. The misunderstanding, you say, is " as to the 
purpose of calling the Council." But that purpose is very distinctly 
stated, at the head, and in the very title of those " Grounds " them- 
selves, to be the dissolution of my connexion with Hollis Street Soci- 
ety: — precisely the purpose for which you now call upon me for a 
second Council. The Ecclesiastical Council now proposed, is, you 
say, " to consider the question of the dissolution of his connexion 
with said Society." The purpose declared in both the calls, then, 
is precisely the same. I have never understood it to be any other. 
\ou have never called upon me for Council to mediate a peace, or 
to harmonize discordant feelings, or to adjudicate upon conflicting 
claims or adverse interests. I have never understood that your pur- 
pose, in all these movements for a Council, was any other than what, 
in your first call, and in this your second, you declare it; — namely, 
to effect a dissolution of my connexion with Hollis Street Society. 
If this is not your purpose, pray be kind enough to state it again. 
But if this is your purpose, there is certainly, no "misunderstanding 
between the parties as to the purpose of calling the Council." If 
you, gentlemen, have misunderstood the law, or the right way of ap- 
plying it, or yet, the true "reasons," or the best means of effecting 
this purpose, am / responsible for that ? If you have gone the wrong 



38 



way to work, to bring about a purpose which we both of us perfectly 
understand, you must settle that among yourselves, and with your 
counsel. We differ, it seems, not as to the purpose, but as to the 
construction, and the legal intendment and effect, of the " Grounds of 
Complaint," sent me last July. That document we construe differ- 
ently ; — you thinking that it leaves a Couucil, convoked under it, 
free to decide whether, for any reasons on earth, or for no reasons, — » 
but only for feelings and resentments, — with reason or without, — my 
connexion with the Society ought to be dissolved; and I holding that 
the Council, convoked under that document, have to consider only 
the reasons assigned in the document itself. 

Now, which of the present parties is to give up its construction to 
the other? Will you allow yours to give place to mine? Probablynot. 
Will I, mine to yours? Certainly not. What then shall be done? 
How shall the true construction be settled between us? Thus: — the 
document in question is a legal instrument. It was framed by legal 
counsel, as a legal means of effecting a legal end. It must receive a 
legal construction. If the parties cannot agree as to what that is, 
there is a legal tribunal that can construe it for them; and by its con- 
struction they will both be bound, and must both abide. Let the 
Supreme Judicial Court construe that paper. The issue between 
us, be it for life or death, is upon that. 1 have no misgivings, as to 
resting my cause upon my construction of your document. And, 
gentlemen, I see not that you have any thing to fear, for yourselves. 
Were it in the heart of your constituents to find fault with you, for 
what you have done, in placing their whole cause upon those 
"Grounds of Complaint," they have, themselves, put it out of their 
power to do so. They have put their corporate seal upon their cor- 
porate lips. At their last annual meeting, long after the issue be- 
tween us was joined upon that declaration of grievances, they voted 
to approve of all your doings; and then, — in their abundant caution, 
they voted to approve their own! Moreover, in my note of the 31st 
of July, remitting to you that document with a request that you 
would authenticate it by your signature, I reminded you, as one of the 
reasons why you should so authenticate it, that "the Articles of Com- 
plaint" are to be the basis of all subsequent proceedings. As such 
you gave them your signature. As such I hold them. Gentlemen, 
you cannot " waive" that paper and I will not. 

If you have, now, no confidence in your case as presented in those 
" Grounds," you do well, perhaps, to try to make another. If you 
see that you cannot stand, upon the ground of our present issue, it 
is very natural that you should " call" me over upon some other 
ground where you think you can stand. I thought that, in your ap- 
plication to Hollis Street Church, to send out Letters Missive to her 
sister churches, I saw an attempt, on your part adroitly to change 
the issue between us, and induce me to take a false one for the true. 
My note of the 4th of September was addressed to you, in the hope 
that you would return to the true question. In your note of the 14th 
of September you decline doing so, and attempt to justify your depart- 
ure. My note of the 18th, shows you that I understood our relative 
position, and meant that itshould beheld. The communication, to 
which I am now replying, has, at least, this merit: — it is open-faced 
and frank. What the former paper gave me to suspect, this plainly 
avows. I cannot but think, however, that, in sending me this paper, 



S9 



you have calculated largely upon my good nature. And, really, the 
condescending, not to say coaxing air with which you assure me that 
if I will agree to the Council, on the " Grounds" now proposed, — 
when those matters shall have been presented which, by law and 
usage, you have a right to present, under those " Grounds," you 
shall be ready to proceed with the omitted changes if I am willing to 
have them presented and if the council are willing to hear them — is 
quite touching. Whether this patronizing tone will succeed in bring- 
ing me under your protection, and in changing the issue between us, 
time will show. If it does not, or if some other mancsvre does not, 
you must either make new law, or new logic, on the one hand; or, 
on the other, you must either go to trial upon your original "Grounds 
of Complaint," and the issue taken upon them, or you must give up 
your case. The logic requires first, that you show that the specific 
averments, contained in that paper, are true; and secondly, that, be- 
ing true, they furnish good "reasons" for the dissolution which it is 
"the purpose" of that paper to effect. If you show both of these, 
you succeed. If not, you fail. 

One other consideration, I pray you, gentlemen, allow me to offer. 
In your present movement for a Council, you say that you have 
omitted, from your " General Statement" of the reasons of your 
call, certain of the subjects of complaint before specified to me. — 
And I see that you have omitted several of the gravest and grossest 
of your former charges. Why have you done this ? Your letter 
gives me to understand that it is not because you have become con- 
vinced that those charges are false and injurious to me, but because 
they have operated unfavorably to yourselves. They have been 
stumbling-blocks in the way of the Council; — a body whose actiou 
youha.ve asked for, not I; — to subserve your purpose; — not mine. — 
You say that those specifications are now omitted in order "to ob- 
viate the objections which, you understand, prevented some of the 
churches invited by the Hollis Street Church, to sit in Council, from 
accepting- that invitation;" and, again, you say that you omit them 
" only to prevent a second failure in obtaining a Mutual Council." — 
It is not, then, because you believe me guiltless of those charges; — 
guiltless of a want of decency in my public ministrations, and of a want 
of integrity, and of a regard for truth in my secular affairs, — that you 
now leave out those gross accusations. Nor, yet, is it in tenderness 
towards me or mine that, you forbear to press them; but " only to 
prevent a second failure in obtaining a Mutual Council. And, yet, 
the ninth of the reasons that you now alledge for the dissolution of 
my connexion with your Society, is " Because the controversy which 
exists, and is likely to continue, between said Pastor and Society, is 
a scandal and an injury to the christian cause." The christian cause, 
then is to be guarded against injury and scandal, by bringing the 
pastor of a christian chruch bfifoae a Council, to answer for some of 
his lighter offences; and by letting him go at large among the christ- 
ian churches, " unvvhipped of justice" for his more heinous sins! — 
As guardians of the christian cause, 

" Will ye the felon fox restrain. 
And yet take off the tiger's chain V\ 

But, Gentlemen, passing by this commendable jealousy of yours 
for the welfare of the christian cause, at large, I cannot see,— though 



40 



you may — how you can justify yourselves, as an accusing and a 
prosecuting Committee of a particular Society of Christians, whose 
sole cc purpose it is to extrude its pastor from his pulpit, — in thus 
giving his greater sins the go-by, and bringing him before Councils 
for his less. If you believe that the charges brought against me last 
July are true — charges of impurity of mind, indecency in language, 
and frauds and falsehood in business — it seems to me that you owe it 
to yourselves, to your object, to your own church, to all the churches, 
and to the christian cause at large, to prosecute those charges to final 
judgment. To yourselves you owe it; — for you will thus prove your- 
selves true men, in that you have said of me on%y what you believe 
is true. To your object you owe it; — for, if these specific allegations 
are proved, not only am I cast out of my own pulpit, and of every 
other pulpit; but I am branded with disgrace to your entire satisfac- 
tion : — and thus your object is effected. And you owe it to your own 
church, to all other churches, and to the christian cause at large; — 
for all these ought to be ministered to with clean hands. If on the 
other hand, you do not believe that those atrocious charges are true, 
let me ask you, as men who have either "raised a false report" of 
i( taken up a reproach against your neighbor" and accused him 
falsely, whether you do not owe it to me to retract those accusations: 
— openly, frankly, manfully to retract them: — retract them as sol- 
emnly as you have made them: — retract them in a document signed 
by all of you, who have put your names to them, that I may file it 
with the other papers in this case: — and retract them too, upon the 
Records of your Society, so far as you have placed them there: — 
placed them there before they were communicated to me, and before 
I ever saw them: — placed them there, as I cannot but think, in an evil 
hour for yourselves ? 

It seems to me that the work of cleasing Hollis Street Pulpit, should 
be undertaken by men whose own hands are clean. But, how is 
this? Among other " Grounds of Complaint" furnished me by your 
board, under date, 27th July, you charge me with having been want- 
ing in a scrupulous integrity in my secular dealings. By far the 
grossest and most specious — because the most circumstancial — of the 
specifications under that head, is one in which a member of your own 
board is named, as a party concerned: The same individual's name 
is signed to a Report of a previous Committee, which was made to 
the Proprietors at their meeting on the evening of the 6th of last 
April; in which Report is embodied, though in language somewhat 
more gaurded, a general charge to the same effect, as to my want of 
integrity in my secular dealings. That Report is spread upon the 
Records of your constituents, the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meet- 
ing House. 

Now I do not say, Gentlemen, that the particular statement re- 
ferred to, as made for the support of that general charge as it lies 
both on the Records of the Proprietors and in your former "Grounds 
of Complaint," was known by your whole board to be what it is, — 
one of that class of falsehoods which consists in a suppression of 
the truth. That statement, in the view both of morality and of law, 
is utterly false, — false in the impression that it makes, and was 
meant to make: — false in spirit:— essentially false, in every thing but 
the letter. I do not say — for I do not believe, that, to this hour, the 
true character of that specification is known to more than one at 



41 



your board, or to either of your legal counsel. But I do say that it 
is thus false, and that it was known to be so by one member of your 
body, whose name is signed both to the Report on the Proprietors' 
Records, and to your own " Grounds of Complaint" upon which 
you asked me to go before a Council last July. I deliberately affirm 
and repeat, that one man at your board knows that that statement 
is thus false, and that he knew it to be false when he gave it to your 
counsel and your board. Give me a hearing before the Ecclesiasti- 
cal tribunal to which you have called me, and I have consented to 
go, — or before any other tribunal where truth can be established and 
falsehood exposed, and I will prove not only the falsehood of that 
man's statement, but his knowledge of its falsehood, by a weight of 
evidence that shall crush him to the earth. He knows this. You 
ought to know it. If you do not know it, he has abused your confi- 
dence. If your counsel do not know it, he has abused theirs. I 
weigh my words: — I know my responsibilities, and am ready to meet 
It, when I say again that that allegation of fraud on my part is false; 
and that one man at yo*ur board knew that it was false when he gave 
it his name. So of all the rest of those vile specifications affecting 
my integrity and veracity. Bring me where I can confront the wit- 
nesses by which you have ever hoped to prove them, and I will brand 
<c False" upon the forehead of every one of them, with a stamp 
that shall burn to the bone. 

This I expected to be allowed to do, when I accepted your call to 
go before a Council with you, upon those charges "as reasons for 
the dissolution of my connexion with you. This I had a right to 
expect. I have long expected, and I expect it yet. I have waited 
patiently for that time to come. For fifteen weeks, I waited for your 
" Grounds of Complaint" to be forth-coming. Was not that long 
enough? If not, — the time was your own, why not have taken fif- 
teen weeks more ? But they appeared ut last, bearing for support, 
upon those false and libellous specifications: — and now, after thir- 
teen weeks more of negociation, during which your call was accept- 
ed, on my part; a Council agreed upon by both parties, and defeated 
— you shall say by which, — I am asked to go before a Council, upon 
a list of Complaints from which all those accusations of fraud and 
falsehood are left out, on the ground that their character prevented 
some of the churches invited upon the Council from accepting the in- 
vitation ! Gentlemen, we have just heard of an attempt upon the life 
of the French king. In the heartiness of his hate, the regicide had 
rammed his carbine so full of bullets and buck-shot, that the barrel 
burst, and tore his assassin hand. Have you, Gentlemen, loaded 
your piece so deep that neither will the churches come within hear- 
ing of it, nor even your Counsel stand by you, when you let it off? 
And do you now "call" upon me to wait awhile, that you may draw 
the heaviest of your balls, and then let you try the'<rest? Gentlemen, 
I commend your caution, in this; but I cannot consult your conven- 
ience. 

No, Gentlemen, as individuals and as a body, you have made an 
atrocious attack upon my character; not as a clergyman, only, but as 
a man; — and, when you consider that in morals, as well as in phy- 
sics, action and re-action are equal, you will see, at once, that the 
blow, if not fatal to me, will be to yourselves.. To me it is fatal, if 
3'our charges are true: — to you, if they are false and malicious. — 

6 



42 



Either meet me upon them, or retract them. I demand it of you that, 
if you do not retract them, as above suggested, you carry me before 
a Council convoked, — not to attend to something else first, end then 
to take them up, if perchance, they are of a mind to; — but expressly 
for the trial of your case, as presented in your " Grounds" of last 
July, and with the knowledge, on the part of the Council, that it is 
to take cognizance of those charges and, in your own words, " to 
deliberate and decide thereupon:" — a Council before which I can 
confront both my accusers and their witnesses. Or, if you will not 
do this, 1 think you will have no good reason to complain, if, remem^ 
bering that, not only as a clergyman but as a citizen, I am under the 
protection of the laws. I carry you where you will be compelled 
either to plead tc Guilty," in an action of Libel, or to come, your- 
selves, with your witnesses where I can confront you both. 

It would be with unspeakable reluctance that I should feel myself 
compelled to take this step. But what shall I do? What can I do? 
You throw a false blot upon my name, as it lies upon the Records of 
an immortal body, — to be looked at and wondered at by my children 
and yours, when we shall all be in our graves: — you place your Re- 
cords and your permanant papers where I cannot reach them, even 
by process of law, to expunge from the allegations of deep moral 
turpitude, that you have deliberately spread upon them; — and then 
you refuse either to prove them true, yourselves, or to let me prove 
them false ! Gentlemen, I do not ask you as christians, whether this 
is christian in you; — I put it to you, as men — Is it manly? 

Upon these cruel charges, I think I have a right to demand that 
you give me a hearing before my peers, and give it soon; or, that 
you acknowledge that you have wronged me, and then leave me, for 
the rest of my days, — or, at least, while I have the power — to per- 
form, in peace the duties of my office, in the fear of God, but not in 
the fear of man. Till you do this — to say nothing of the judgment 
©f coming times, upon your cause, — or yet, of a coming world — I 
know that you cannot carry with you the approbation of this chris- 
tian community. I think, you cannot carry with you your own. 

I have thus given you my reasons, Gentlemen, for declining this 
your second, call to unite with you in a Mutual Ecclesiastical Coun- 
cil: — and I close with a renewal of my offer to go with you before 
the Council provided for by our present agreement; — an agreement 
in which the faith of the parties is mutually pledged. 
Respectfully, 

Your servant, 

JNO. PIERPONT 

Bosten, 12th Nov. 1840. 

The Committee of the Proprietors appointed at the meeting holden 
on the 6th of April last, to take certain measures relating to the 
disagreement between the Society and the Pastor, ask leave to re- 
port. 

That they communicated to Mr. Pierpont the votes passed at that 
meeting and also prepared and presented to him certain Grounds of 
Complaint as a foundation for a call upon him to agree to a Mutual 
Council — and requested him so to agree. That a long correspon- 
dence ensued between the Pastor and the Committee which ended in 
the selection of fourteen of the churches in Boston to compose a 



43 



Mutual Council. At the suggestion of Mr. Pierpont the Committee 
consented that the letters missive should be issued by the church, but 
upon further correspondence it was found that the church proposed 
to issue them with certain provisions and limitations to which the 
Committee could not agree and the Committee therefore withdrew 
their consent to the issuing of the letters by the church unless they 
were framed in the usual unlimited manner. The church however 
disregarded this dissent of the Committee and assumed to issue the 
letters in the mode proposed by themselves or by the pastor after 
their authority had thus been revoked. Upon which the Committee 
notified to the churches that the letters were unauthorized by the 
Society. 

Eight of the churches attended by the Ministers and Delegates at 
the Hollis Street Meeting House on the 13th of October last. The 
committee declined appearing or becoming a party to any proceedings 
before them. The ministers and delegates assembled organized and 
passed certain resolutions and addressed a letter to the committee 
offering them mediation between the Society and its paster. This 
proposition the committee declined accepting and they have since 
renewed to the pastor their offer of a Mutual Council to be convened 
upon letters missive to be issued by the Pastor and the Society in the 
usual form; and with such modifications of the Grounds and Reasons 
for the call as the Committee supposed would remove the objections 
they had understood would prevent the attendance of some of the 
churches. At the same time offering to Mr. Pierpont to have all the 
former charges investigated, if he and the council should be willing 
to have them examined. This call Mr. Pierpont has declined in a 
long and violent letter, which he has also seen fit to publish in a 
pamphlet. For more particulars the Committee would refer to the 
correspondence and documents that have passed between themselves 
and the pastor and church, which are in the hand* . the Com- 
mittee. 

In this state of the matter the Committee have thought proper to 
report their proceedings to the Society and to take their further in- 
structions. It becomes the melancholy duty of the Committee fur- 
ther to report a vacancy in their number by the lamented decease of 
Mr. Richards Child. 

Respectfully, submitted 
(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, ^ 
JNO. D. WILLIAMS, 
DANIEL WELD, 
WM. W. CLAPP, t n ... 
TIMO. TILESTON, committee. 
RUEL BAKER, 
WARREN WHITE, 

Voted, to accept the report of the Committee and that all their 
doings are approved and confirmed by the Society. 

Voted, that Messrs. Joshua Crane, John D. Williams, Daniel 
Weld, Wm. W. Clapp, Timothy Tileston, Ruel Baker, and War- 
ren White, be a Committee to take all necessary and proper measures 
to call an ex-parte Council to consider and advise upon the matters 
in difference between the Society and its Pastor, and that said Com- 
mittee be authorised to employ Counsel and to represent the Society 
in all things before the Council when convened. 



44 



To the Church in Boston under the Pastoral care of 

Rev. 

Christian Brethren: — 
The Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, having requested 
their Pastor, the Rev. John Pierpont, to join with them in calling a 
Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, to consider the question of the disso- 
lution of his connexion with said Society, and presented to him a 
general statement of the grounds and reasons of the call so made 
upon him, and he having refused to join with them in calling a Mu- 
tual Council, the said Proprietors have determined to call an ex-parte 
Council, to consider the question aforesaid, and have selected the 
following churches in Boston to compose the same, viz: — 

Under the Pastoral care of 
The First Church, Rev, N. L. Frothingham, D. D. 

Second Church, " Chandler Robbins, 

Brattle Street Churchy " Samuel K. Lothrop, 

New North, " Francis Parkman, D. D. 

New South, " Alexander Young, 

Federal Street, « 5 ^ ^; Charming, D. D. 

J I E. S. Gannett, 

West Church " 5 Charles Lowell, D. D. 

West Cnurcn, ^ Cyrus A. Bartol, 

King's Chapel, " F. W. P. Greenwood, D. D. 

Bulfinch Street Church, " Fred'k. T. Gray, 

Twelfth Congregational Church, " Samuel Barrett, 
Purchase Street " " George Ripley, 

South Congregational " " Mellish I. Motte, 

Pitts Street Chapel, " Robert C. Waterston, 

Suffolk Street, " John T. Sargent, 

each church to be represented by its Pastor and Delegate. 

Therefore the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, con- 
stituting the Christian Society worshipping in the same, hereby res- 
pectfully request you by your Pastor and Delegate to sit in Council 
with the other churches above named to consider the question 
aforesaid. 

The Council will convene at the United States Court Room, on 
Monday the fifteenth day of Feb'y. inst., at 10 o'clock, A. M. 
JOSHUA CRANE, ^| 
JOHN D. WILLIAMS, 
DANIEL WELD, 
WM. W. CLAPP, 

TIMOTHY TILESTON, | * treet Society. 
RUEL BAKER, 
WARREN WHITE, 
Boston, Feb'y. %d, 1841. 

To the Church in Boston, under the Pastoral care of the 
Reverend 

Christian Brethren: — 
We enclose you Letters missive requesting your assistance at an 
ex-parte Council. Lest objection should arise in your minds from a 
misunderstanding of past occurrences, we beg leave to state the fol- 
lowing facts : 

We proposed a Mutual Council to our Pastor on the 27th of July 



Committee of Hollis 



45 



last, stating to him certain special matters to be submitted to the 
Council. He agreed to it. The churches whom we now address, 
were agreed upon to compose that Council. A difference subse- 
quently arose upon the point whether the Council should be by the 
terms of the Letters missive, confined to certain specified questions, 
arising upon the matters so stated. 

To this limitation of their powers, we refused to agree, and for- 
bade the issuing of such Letters missive. Notwithstanding this dis- 
agreement and prohibition, the Hollis Street Church saw fit to issue 
their Letters as for a Mutual Council, with that limitation of its 
powers. We notified the churches of this disagreement, and decli- 
ned appearing before their Council thus restricted. 

Thus the agreement for a Council was never complete, it appear- 
ing before the issuing of the Letters, that the parties differed as to 
the matter to be sobmitted, and the Parish having for that reason 
withdrawn the authority given to the church to act in their name. 

Certain of the Churches refused to accept the invitation; others 
attended, but declined proceeding on account of this difference be- 
tween the parties. 

Those who attended offered their mediation, not as a Council, bu 
in their associate capacity, as representing sister Churches. 

We declined the offer, because no result of such mediation would 
be of any legal effect between the parties, either to bind them to sub 
mit to it, or to serve as the basis of any legal proceeding. 

Having understood that some misapprehension exists on this point, 
we beg leave to present it somewhat more particularly: 

We are advised by our Counsel that, except for open and gross 
immoralities, the contract between minister and people can be ter 
minated only by first procuring the advice of a regular Ecclesiastica 
Council to that effect. Such Council must be mutual, if the party 
called upon will agree to join in calling it — and to be mutual, it must 
be fully and understanding^ agreed upon by both parties, both as to 
the persons to compose it, and the subjects to be submitted. If the 
party called upon refuses to agree to a Mutual Council, the other 
party may call an ex-parte Council, and the result of such Council, 
whether mutual or ex-parte, is binding, if the Council proceed regu- 
ularly and property. That is to say, in any suit at law by one party 
for a breach of the contract of settlement, the result of the Council 
is a justification to the other party for refusing further to perform 
the contract. But, except for open and gross immoralities, the Judi- 
cial Courts will not decide whether the contract is at an end until a 
Council, regularly constituted, and and acting within the scope of its 
authority, has first advised a dissolution. 

The gentlemen assembled at Hollis Street Meeting House, if they 
could have acted at all as a Council, could have acted only on the 
questions specified in the Letters missive, upon which, under the cir- 
cumstances, they declined acting as a council. Their advice, acting 
under the general mediation offered, would have had no legal effect, 
and neither party would have been bound by it. The Society, 
therefore, though they gratefully acknowledge the kindness of the 
offer, could not expect from it a relief from their difficulties. They 
had become convinced that resort must finally be had to legal pro- 
cess, before this controversy could be terminated. For this purpose 
they had a right to a free Council. Their Pastor would agree only 
to one with limited powers; this the Society refused to agree to. 



46 



Mr. Pierpont failed to procure a limited Council, and the Society 
now claim their right to have a free one. 

For this purpose, they have since called again on Mr. Pierpont, 
to agree to a Mutual Council, stating to him the grounds and rea- 
sons; he has refused. It now becomes their right to have an ex- 
parte Council. 

When we say that the Society has a right to have a free Council 
and an ex-parte Council, we trust you will not understand us as 
meaning that they have a right to insist upon your Church or any 
other particular churches, agreeing to sit in it, but only to express 
our view of the rights of the Society as between them and their 
Pastor. 

We have framed the Letters missive in the usual comprehensive 
terms, leaving to the Council full powers to deal in this matter 
according to the established usage of the New England Churches. 

In selecting for the Council, the same churches to whom Mr. Pier- 
pont had before agreed, we have endeavored to exhibit a spirit of 
perfect fairness towards him. And we shall request the Council, 
when assembled, though called exparte, to invite Mr. Pierpont to 
attend and be heard. 

Having thus endeavored to remove any extrinsic objection to your 
accepting this invitation, we earnestly hope that your Church will 
consider it a duty not to refuse their aid according to ancient and 
established usage, in putting an end to the present unfortunate con- 
troversy, and saving the Christian cause from the scandal of its 
longer continuance. 

(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, 1 
JNO. D. WILLIAMS, 
DANIEL WELD, 
RICHARDS CHILD, 
W. W. CLAPP, 
TIMO. TILESTON, 
RUEL BAKER, 
WARREN WHITE, J 
Boston, Feb. 2, 1841. 



Committee of Hollis 
Street Society. 



PRELIMINARY 



PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL 

ON THE 

QUESTION OF ITS JURISDICTION. 



Boston, Petty 15th, 1841. 

An Ex-parte Ecclesiastical Council, called by Letters Missive 
from the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, to consider 
the question of the dissolution of the connexion between them 
and the Rev. John Pierpont, their Pastor, assembled this day at 
10 o'clock in the United States District Court Room. 

The Council was called to OTder by Rev. Dr. Frothingham, 
and on his nomination, Rev. Dr. Parkman was chosen Moderator. 

Prayers were offered and the blessing and guidance of Almighty 
God invoked by the Moderator. 

On nomination of Rev. Mr. Young, Rev. S. K. Lothrop was 
chosen Scribe. 

The Letter Missive was read as follows, with the accompanying 
letter. 

To the New North Church in Boston under the Pastoral care of 
Rev'd Francis Parkman, D. D. 

Christian Brethren. 
The Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, having re- 
quested their Pastor, the Rev. John Pierpont, to join with them 



46 



in calling a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, to consider the ques- 
tion of the dissolution of his connexion with said Society, and 
presented to him a general statement of the grounds and reasons 
of the call so made upon him, and he having refused to join with 
them in calling a mutual Council, the said Proprietors have de- 
termined to call an ex-parte Council, to consider the question 
aforesaid, and have selected the following Churches in Boston to 
compose the same, viz : 

Under the Pastoral care of 
Rev. N. L. Frothingham, D. D. 
" Chandler Robbins. 



The First Church, 

Second Church, 
Brattle Street Church, 
New North, 
New South, 
Federal Street, 

West Church, 

King's Chapel, 
Bulfinch Street Church, 
Tivelfth Congregational Ch. 
Purchase Street, 
South Congregational, 
Pitts Street Chapel, 
Suffolk Street, 



Samuel K. Lothrop. 
Francis Parkman, D. 
Alexander Young. 

E. S. Gannett. 

\ Charles Lowell, D. D. 
[ Cyrus A. Bartol. 

F. W. P. Greenwood, 
Frederick T. Gray. 
Samuel Barrett. 
George Ripley. 

M. I. Mott. 

R. C. Waterston. 

John T. Sargent. 



D. 



D. D. 



each Church to be represented by its Pastor, or Pastors, and one 
Delegate. 

Therefore the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, 
constituting the Christian Society worshipping in the same, 
hereby respectfully request you by your Pastor and Delegate to 
sit in Council with the other Churches above named to consider 
the question aforesaid. 

The Council will convene at the United States Court Room, on 
Monday, the fifteenth day of February inst. at 10 o'clock, A. M. 
Boston, FeVy 2d, 1841. 

JOSHUA CRANE, 

JOHN D. WILLIAMS, 

DANIEL WELD, 

WM. W. CLAPP, 

TIMO. TILESTON, 

RUEL BAKER, 

WARREN WHITE, 



Committee of 
Hollis Street Society. 



To the Church in Boston, under the Pastoral care of the Reverend 
Samuel K. Lothrop. 
Christian Brethren, 
We enclose you Letters missive requesting your assistance at 
an ex-parte Council. Lest objection shoufd arise in your minds 



49 



from a misunderstanding of past occurrences, we beg leave to 
state the following facts : 

We proposed a mutual Council to our Pastor on the 27th of 
July last, stating to him certain special matters to be submitted 
to the Council. He agreed to it. The Churches, whom we now 
address, were agreed upon to compose that Council. A difference 
subsequently arose upon the point, whether the Council should be 
by the terms of the Letters missive confined to certain specified 
questions, arising upon the matters so stated. 

To this limitation of their powers we refused to agree, and for- 
bade the issuing of such Letters missive. Notwithstanding this 
disagreement and prohibition, the Hollis Street Church saw fit to 
issue their Letters as for a mutual Council with that limitation 
of its powers. We notified the Churches of this disagreement 
and declined appearing before the Council thus restricted. 

Thus the agreement for a Council was never complete, it ap- 
pearing before the issuing of the Letters, that the parties differed 
as to the matter to be submitted, and the Parish having for that 
reason withdrawn the authority given to the Church to act in 
their name. 

Certain of the Churches refused to accept the invitation : 
others attended, but declined proceeding on account of this dif- 
ference between the parties. 

Those who attended offered their mediation, not as a Council, 
but in their associate capacity as representing sister Churches. 

We declined the offer, because no result of such mediation 
would be of any legal effect between the parties, either to bind 
them to submit to it, or to serve as the basis of any legal pro- 
ceeding. 

Having understood that some misapprehension exists on this 
point, we beg leave to present it somewhat more particularly : 

We are advised bj our Counsel that, except for open and gross 
immoralities, the contract between minister and people can be 
terminated only by first procuring the advice of a regular eccle- 
siastical Council to that effeet. Such Council must be mutual, if 
the party called upon will agree to join in calling it — and to be 
mutual, it must be fully and understandingly agreed upon by 
both parties, both as to the persons to compose it, and the sub- 
jects to be submitted. If the party called upon refuses to agree 
to a mutual Council, the other party may call an ex-parte Coun- 
cil, and the result of such Council, whether mutual or ex-parte, is 
binding, if the Council proceed regularly and properly. That is 
to say, in any suit at law by one party for a breach of the con- 
tract of settlement, the result of the Council is a justification to 
the other party for refusing further to perform the contract. But, 
except for open and gross immoralities, the Judicial Courts will 
not decide whether the contract is at an end until a Council, 
7 ■ 



50 



regularly constituted, and acting within the scope of its authority, 
has first advised a dissolution. 

The gentlemen assembled at Hollis Street Meeting House, if 
they could have acted at all as a Council, could have acted only 
on the questions specified in the Letters missive, upon which, 
under the circumstances, they declined acting as a council. 
Their advice acting under the general mediation offered, would 
have had no legal effect, and neither party would have been 
bound by it. The Society therefore, though they gratefully ac- 
knowledge the kindness of the offer, could not expect from it a 
relief from their difficulties. They had become convinced that 
resort must finally be had to legal process, before this contro- 
versy could be terminated. For this purpose they had a right 
to a free Council. Their Pastor would agree only to one with 
limited powers ; this the Society refused to agree to. Mr Pier- 
pont failed to procure a limited Council, and the Society now 
claim their right to have a free one. 

For this purpose they have since called again on Mr. Pierpont 
to agree to a mutual Council, stating to him the grounds and 
reasons ; he has refused. It now becomes their right to have an 
ex-parte Council. 

When we say that the Society has a right to have a free Coun- 
cil and an ex-parte Council, we trust you will not understand us 
as meaning that they have a right to insist upon your Church 
or any other particular Churches, agreeing to sit in it, but only 
to express our views of the rights of the Society as between 
them and their Pastor. 

We have framed the Letters missive in the usual comprehen- 
sive terms, leaving to the Council full powers to deal in this matter 
according to the established usage of the New England Churches. 

In selecting for the Council the same Churches to whom Mr. 
Pierpont had before agreed, we have endeavored to exhibit a 
spirit of perfect fairness towards him. And we shall request the 
Council when assembled, though called ex-parte, to invite Mr. 
Pierpont to attend and be heard. 

Having thus endeavored to remove any extrinsic objections to 
your accepting this invitation, we earnestly hope that your 
Church will consider it a duty not to refuse their aid according 
to ancient and established usage, in putting an end to the present 
unfortunate controversy, and saving the Christian cause from the 
scandal of its longer continuance. 

Boston, FeVy 2d, 1841. 

JOSHUA CRANE, 
JOHN D. WILLIAMS, 
DANIEL WELD, Committee of 

WM. W. CLAPP, 
TIMO. TILESTON, 
RUEL BAKER, 
WARREN WHITE, 



Hollis Street Society. 



51 



It appeared that the following Churches were represented on 
the Council 

Rev. Dr. Frothingham and S. H. 

Babcock. 
Rev. Chandler Robbins and R. W. 
Bailey. 

Rev. S. K. Lothrop and Rev. Dr. 
Palfrey. 

Rev. Dr. Parkman and Deac. J. 

B. Hammatt. 
Rev. Alexander Young and Deac. 

Wm. Worthington. 
Rev. E. S. Gannett and D. R. 

Chapman. 
Rev. Dr. Greenwood and S. A. 
Eliot. 

Rev. F. T. Gray and W. G. Bab- 
cock. 

Rev. Samuel Barrett and Deac. 

L. G. Pray. 
Rev. George Ripley and Richard 

Austin. 
Rev. R. C. Waterston. 
Rev. J. T. Sargent and Deac. 
Martin Lincoln. 
Tt appeared that two of the Churches, mentioned in the Letters 
Missive, as among the churches invited to compose the Council, 
were not represented, viz. the West Church, and the South Con- 
gregational Church. The Moderator inquired if answers had 
been received from these Churches, and their letters declining to 
be present were laid before the Council. 
On motion of the Scribe, it was then 

Voted, That it now be signified to the Proprietors of Hollis 
Street Meeting House, that the Council, called by Letters mis- 
sive from them, is assembled and duly organized for business, 
and that it also be inquired of them whether, in accordance with 
the purpose intimated in the Document accompanying their 
Letter missive, notice has been sent to the Rev, John Pierpont 
of the calling of this Council, and an invitation extended to him 
to attend and submit the difficulties between himself and the 
said Proprietors to its examination ; and whether they have re- 
ceived any, and if any, what answer to that invitation. 

Franklin Dexter, Esq., in behalf of the Proprietors, replied 
that such notice and invitation had not been sent to Mr. Pier- 
pont ; that it was the wish of the Proprietors that Mr. Pierpont 
should be present, but that they had deferred inviting him, think- 
ing it better that the invitation should proceed from the Council 
itself. 



First Church, represented by 

Second Church, " 

Brattle Street, " 

New North, " 

New South, " 

Federal Street, " 

Kings Chapel, " 

Bulfinch Street, 

12th Congregational, " 

Purchase Street, " 

Pitts Street, " 
Suffolk Street, 



52 



Whereupon, on the motion of the Rev. Mr. Young, it was 
Voted, That a committee of this Council be appointed to wait 
on Rev. John Pierpont, and inform him that this Council is now 
assembled, and would be pleased to have him attend, or to re- 
ceive any communications or statements he may be disposed to 
make to it. 

The following gentlemen were appointed to compose this 
committee, viz : 

Rev. Alexander Young, Mr. D. R. Chapman, 

Mr. S. A. Eliot, Rev. Dr. Frothingham, 

Rev. Samuel Barrett, Rev. E. S. Gannett. 

Before the Committee left the Council, Rev. Mr. Barrett in- 
quired if copies of the Letters missive and accompanying docu- 
ment, had been sent to Mr. Pierpont. Mr. Dexter replied that 
they had not ; that the Proprietors had had no communication 
with him since the receipt of his letter declining their proposi- 
tion for a M Jtual Council. Upon motion of Mr. Barrett, it was 
therefore, 

Ordered, That the Committee be furnished with copies of 
these papers, to present to Mr. Pierpont. 

The Committee retired, and subsequently came in and re- 
ported, That they had attended to the duty assigned them ; that 
they had waited upon Rev. John Pierpont, had laid before him 
the Letter missive of the Proprietors, and the accompanying 
document, and the vote of the Council, and had held a long con- 
versation with him upon the subject ; that in conclusion, Mr. 
Pierpont said, that as this was a matter of great importance, he 
wished time for consideration, and would be ready to make a 
communication to this Council to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. 

On motion of Deac. J. B. Hammatt, it was 

Voted, That the Report of the Committee be accepted, and that 
this Council do now adjourn to meet at this place to-morrow 
morning at 10 o'clock. Adjourned. 

Feb. mh, 1841. 
The Council assembled at 10 o'clock, agreeably to adjourn- 
ment. 

Prayer was offered by the Rev. Dr. Frothingham. 

The Scribe read the records of the previous meeting. The 
Moderator reminded the Council, that they had adjourned to this 
hour, to accommodate Rev. John Pierpont, and receive such re- 
ply as he might see fit to make to the application made to him 
yesterday, through a committee of the Council. 

The Scribe then informed the Council that he had received 
from the Rev. John Pierpont a document, with the request that 
he would put it in the proper train or channel to be brought to 
the knowledge of the body to which he was Scribe. 

It was ordered that the document be read, which was done by 
the Scribe, as follows : 



i 



53 



To the Pastors and Delegates of Churches, assembled as an Ecclesi- 
astical Council, at the call of a Committee of the Proprietors of 
Hollis Street Meeting House, and now sitting in the United 
Court Room, in Boston. 

Christian Brethren : 
I have received the communication which your committee, by 
your instructions, has made to me, informing me of your call, 
convention and organization, advising me of the matters propo- 
sed to be submitted to your consideration, as an ex parte Coun- 
cil, and giving me to understand that an opportunity is now- 
allowed me to appear before you, if I think proper, and make 
answer to the various complaints to be laid before you for your 
advice and adjudication. 

In reply, I beg leave to lay befo;e you, with the request that 
it may be incorporated with your doings, at least, that it may 
be placed among the other papers in the case, this, my respect- 
ful but earnest remonstrance against the proceedings, in the 
premises, of those at whose call you have come together, as well 
as against your taking cognizance, as an ex parte Council, of any 
matters which they may have brought, or may yet bring before 
you, in such a way as to affect my character, rights or interests. 

The reasons of this Remonstrance, I request permission 
briefly to lay before you. They are three. 

First : — A year ago last October, at their meeting, on the 7th 
of that month, I tendered to the Proprietors of Hollis Street 
Meeting House, a mutual Council, " whose decision should be 
conclusive, final, and forever binding upon both parties," among 
other matters, upon these two points, namely — 1st. " Whether, 
by reason of any thing that I had done, or left undone, in rela- 
tion to the Temperance cause, or any other cause, the connexion 
between the Society and myself ought to be dissolved ; and 2dly, 
— if, for any cause whatever, the relation between the Society and 
myself ought to be dissolved, what were the terms and condi- 
tions on which that dissolution should take place." 

In this proposal, I trust that the body that I now address will 
see proof of a disposition, on my part, to " put an end to strife," 
— the strife, then and now, existing between the Proprietors and 
myself. 

This proposal was rejected ; — the committee to whom it was 
referred, reporting, on the 14th of the same month, in these 
words: — " To the proposition of choosing a Council we object — 
there being, in our opinion, nothing for such a Council to settle" 
The chairman of that committee, who framed and presented that 
report, is the chairman of the committee by which the churches 
here represented have been called together ; and one other mem- 
ber of this committee is the only surviving member of that. 

The disposition of the respective parties to this controversy to 



54 



bring it to a prompt and an equitable close, I leave to be inferred 
from this statement ; which may be verified by an appeal to the 
records and files of the Proprietors, at whose call these churches 
have now come together. I make this statement, that these 
churches may see which of the two parties was the first to make, 
and which the first to reject, the offer of a mutual ecclesiastical 
Council, to decide conclusively upon all matters in controversy 
between them. 

My second reason for declining the call of the Proprietors, made 
upon me on the 26th of last October, for a mutual Council, as 
well as for remonstrating, as I do, against these churches' pro- 
ceeding as an ex parte Council, is, the extreme generality and 
vagueness of the " grounds and reasons " of the call, my refusal of 
which is alleged by the Proprietors, in their Letters Missive to 
these churches, as their justification in issuing those Letters. 
To these churches I say, as I said last November to the Proprie- 
tors — in the whole list of their complaints against me, then 
offered to be referred to a mutual, and now proposed to be laid 
before an ex parte Council, there is not, even alleged, one single 
specific fact for which I am accountable. There is not one 
single thing, that, within the last twenty-one years, I have either 
said, or done, or left undone, so definitely stated, that, were it 
ever so falsely stated, I can, by any possibility, come before you 
prepared with proof to defend myself against it. I would re- 
spectfully put it to the good sense of this body to say, whether, 
refusing to answer to such complaints, before a mutual Council, 
or any other tribunal, is unreasonable. " If," in my ecclesiastical, 
or in any other of my relations, " I have done aught worthy of 
death or of bonds, I refuse not to die." But, when called to an- 
swer before any court, civil or martial, where my life is brought 
in question, I know that I have a right to a specific statement of 
my offence. And I know, too, that I have the same right, when, 
before an ecclesiastical tribunal, interests are brought in question 
that are ten thousand times dearer to me than life. Before being 
called to answer to the allegations submitted to me, last fall, and 
now to be submitted, Christian Brethren, to you, I know that I 
have a right to something more specific. I have already de- 
manded, and I do yet demand it. This right has been denied 
me by those who have called you together. By yourselves, I 
have no fear that it will be disregarded. 

For this second reason, as I declined the call of the Proprie- 
tors to go before a mutual Council, I must also decline answer- 
ing before these churches ; and I do, for this reason also, dis- 
tinctly remonstrate, brethren, against your so proceeding, in the 
premises, as in any way to infringe my afore-named right, or 
to withhold it from me. 

The third reason, Christian brethren, for my refusal, last fall, 
to go before a Mutual Council, upon the matters then submitted 



55 



to me by the adverse party, — and for my present Remonstrance 
against any action on your part, as an ex-parte Council, upon 
the same matters now proposed to be submitted to you — any ac- 
tion, at least, to my prejudice — is, the fact that the Proprietors of 
Hollis Street Meeting House, are already under an engagement 
with me for a Mutual Council, " to deliberate and decide upon 
certain specific " Grounds of Complaint," brought against me on 
the 27th of last July, and proposed by them to be submitted to a 
Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, as reasons for the dissolution of 
my connexion with them." The faith of the parties is solemnly 
and mutually pledged to go together before such a Council, and 
upon those "Grounds," and for the purpose therein stated. 
Upon the basis of that engagement, a Mutual Council has been 
agreed upon by the parties. The engagement has been recog- 
nized and approved by the Church connected with Hollis Street 
Society; — a body that has a deep interest in the questions to 
be submitted to the Council agreed upon, and that issued her 
Letters missive to convoke it. The documents by which this en- 
gagement was entered into, and the Council agreed upon, are in 
my hands, as, I conclude, they are also in those of the other 
party. Should this body desire it, and will advise me to that 
effect, I shall be ready, and most happy, to bring them into its 
presence: — it being distinctly understood, that my appearance 
shall be for that purpose only, and not to recognize its authority 
to act in the premises to my prejudice, as an ex-parte Council. 

From this engagement, deliberately entered into by both the 
parties to this controversy, and involving the interests of a third 
party, — an engagement bearing the names and resting on the 
faith of them both, neither party can retract without the other's 
consent, or, without such a violation of faith, as woiald show that 
the retracting party acknowledges no obligation but the stringent 
force of a penal bond. 

For the Mutual Council thus agreed upon, and for the purpose 
stated by the Proprietors themselves, in their call upon me, last 
July, I have been ready for the last six months, and am ready 
yet. Nay, more: — I have demanded, and do now demand it. I 
have neither asked to withdraw, nor consented that the other 
party should withdraw from it. If they ham withdrawn, they 
have done it in their own wrong; and for that wrong I cannot 
consent to come under penalty or peril. Be it upon themselves! 

Without misgiving: — Nay, — in the confidence that I have, 
brethren, in your love of right, — I appeal not to your love of me> 
— I submit it to you, whether I have not a right to insist, as I do 
insist, upon the fulfilment, even now, by the adverse party, of 
their solemn engagement for the mutual Council upon which we 
have agreed, upon the " Grounds " and for the purpose stated to 
me by themselves. To that Council they offer to submit, for its 
deliberation and decision, certain charges of a very grave char- 



56 



acter; — charges spread before me in long and black array, on the 
" Grouads " of Complaint sent me last July, but wholly and care- 
fully dropped out of the catalogue sent me last October, and mow 
to be laid before you; — charges deeply affecting — nay, if true, 
utterly destructive of — my reputation both as a Christian minister 
and as a man. Those charges, too, or, at least, the substance of 
them, with a little less of coloring, were laid by the Proprietors, 
upon their permanent records, last April; — evert before they had 
ever proffered me a Council, and six months after I had proffered 
them one, and had been refused. There those charges yet lie. I 
cannot consent to be called away from them, and leave them 
where they are, and as they are — unsustained, unrefuted, and 
unretracted, — to bear witness against me after I am dead. No — 
I will rather stand by them and watch them till I die. I think, 
that you, Christian brethren, will say that they who have made 
these charges against me, must meet me upon them, as bound by 
their own solemn engagement, or retract them, as bound by the 
common feeling of equity among men. Till they do either this 
or that, I cannot recognize you as a tribunal having cognizance 
of the case; nor can I consent, — complicated as the case has 
already become, — to having it made still more complicated, by 
bringing into it, and connecting with those charges, any other 
question than what was laid before me by the Proprietors, last 
July, when they first brought their charges against me, and when 
we both bound ourselves to go before a Mutual Council, that 
should be empowered to deliberate and decide upon them. 

These, Christian brethren, are the reasons that led me to de- 
cline submitting to a Mutual Council any new question or matter, 
as requested, last October, by the Proprietors of Hollis Street 
Meeting House. True, I did refuse their ®ffer. But was it un- 
reasonable in me to refuse a Council that we had not agreed 
upon, after they had themselves refused a Council upon which 
we had agreed ? Was it unreasonable in me thus to refuse to be 
drawn away from grave charges — from gross accusations against 
my moral character — and thus leave a hostile fortress behind me, 
first to shoot me down, and then to thunder forth a triumphal 
volley over my grave ? It is for you to say whether, in this, I 
have insisted upon any thing more than my right, have denied 
any right to my opponents, or have, in any way, eommitted the 
honor of my profession. 

The same reasons that led me to decline the Proprietors' call 
for a mutual Council, last October, compel me now to decline ap- 
pearing before this body, as cx-parte Council, to respond to the 
complaints proposed to be laid before you, brethren, by the party 
calling you together: and, for these reasons, I respectfully re- 
monstrate against your action, in the premises, in any such way 
as shall put an instrument into the hand of the adverse party, 
with which they will be able either to drive me off from the 



57 



ground where they have themselves put me, and agreed to meet 
me, — or, after having charged me with a breach of my engage- 
ments, to gain an advantage over me by a violation of their own. 

I cannot, Christian Brethren, think that after I have proffered 
to the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, a Mutual 
Council, that should be empowered conclusively to decide the 
question whether, for any reasons, my connexion with them ought 
to be dissolved, and they have rejected that: — after 1 have agreed 
with them upon a Mutual Council to deliberate and decide upon 
specific charges preferred by themselves against me, and they 
have fallen back from that: — they have good ground of complaint 
that I have so unreasonably refused, a Mutual Council as to justify 
them in calling in, to their aid, an ex-parte one. I have neither 
manifested nor felt any backwardness to bring this controversy 
to a prompt and an equitable adjustment. And if I have shown 
a readiness for this, heretofore, I feel myself bound to say that 
I am equally ready for it now. I cannot believe that any tribu- 
nal, civil or ecclesiastical, will say, that, after agreeing to meet 
the Proprietors upon their definite grounds of complaint, preferred 
against me, last July, I did unreasonably refuse to meet them upon 
the exceedingly indefinite ones, preferred against me in October: 
that, last fall, while their first engagement was as it still is, un- 
performed, I did unreasonably refuse to enter with them into a 
second: — that now, I have not a right to insist upon their fulfill- 
ing one engagement, before I suffer myself to be drawn into ano- 
ther: — that now, I do unreasonably refuse to meet them upon 
ground where I have not agreed to meet them, so long as they 
refuse to come upon the ground where they have agreed to meet 
me: — that I do unreasonably insist, after they have put upon their 
Records charges of gross immoralities against me, and have 
agreed to go with me before a Mutual Council for trial upon those 
charges, and those only, — that they either go thus to trial upon 
them, or retract them fully from their Records. 

A party as I am in this controversy, I am aware, Christian 
Brethren, of the liability of my judgement to be influenced by 
my feelings, in regard to points of so deep a personal interest as 
are those of which I have spoken. But with the best use that I 
can make of such powers as God has given me, of judging as t© 
what is reasonable and what is not, I cannot think it was unrea- 
sonable in me to refuse, as I did, the " call" of the Proprietors, 
last October; or that it is unreasonable, now, to remonstrate, as 
I do, against your proceeding further in considering the "Grounds 
of Complaint," then laid before me: — the only matters, connected 
with this controversy, that can properly or legally be brought 
before you. 

That the churches here convoked, as an ex-parte Council, by 
Letters Missive from the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting 
House, — those Proprietors, themselves, — and all others, in any 
8 



58 



way interested in the present controversy between the Proprie- 
tors and myself, — may understand that, while I refuse to make 
myself a party to an ez-parte Council, called under the present 
circumstances by those Proprietors, for the purpose and on the 
grounds laid before me in their "call" of last October; — and 
while I remonstrate as I do, against these churches' proceeding 
to act, as such Council, upon the matters then laid before me; — 
I yet do this, not from a wish to shrink from any investigation of 
my conduct, during any part of my ministry or my life — for my 
adversaries know that I have demanded investigation, rather than 
shrunk from it; — not from any want of confidence in the judg- 
ment of these churches; — nor yet from a want of a hearty desire, 
on my part, to bring this controversy to a prompt and equitable 
termination: — I would say distinctly, and I do say, that, on the 
contrary, next to my desire of right, my desire is for peace; and, 
in order to secure both right and peace, I am willing and ready, 
so far as my own feelings and interests are concerned, to submit 
myself to the judgment and decision of some tribunal, whose 
action, in the premises, shall be final, conclusive, and forever 
binding: — which no action of these churches — or of any other 
churches, sitting as an Ecclesiastical Council, either ex-parte or 
mutual, ever can be. 

But it is to be considered, that not my interests alone are at 
stake, in the present controversy between the Proprietors of Hol- 
lis Street Meeting House and myself. There are also the inter- 
ests of the christian church, connected with Hollis Street Society, 
and forming a part of it. There are, moreover, the interests of 
a large number of the Proprietors of the Meeting House, — an 
actual majority of those Proprietors worshipping in that House, 
and interested in its ministrations. The rights of all these par- 
ties not only may — they must be affected by any action of the 
present convocation of churches, sitting as an ex-parte Council; — 
and yet, before such a Council, they cannot, of right, appear and 
represent their interests. 

But to the churches here represented, — organized and sitting 
as a Mutual Council, or to any other tribunal upon which the 
above named parties may mutually agree, either as " an Eccle- 
siastical Council," or " a Reference," and which they may clothe 
with full power to decide upon all questions of right between the 
parties, I am willing to refer all matters whatever for hearing and 
adjudication; it being understood, that all the parties previously 
come under suitable obligations to make the judgment of such 
tribunal, conclusive, final, and forever binding. 
With Christian salutations, 

Your friend and brother, 

JNO. PIERPONT. 

Feb. 15th, 1841. 

After the reading of this document, Rev. Br. Palfrey made 



59 



some remarks upon the character, purposes and authority of an ex- 
parte Council, spoke of this document as altogether appropriate and 
pertinent to the present stage of the business of the Council and 
the first question they had to decide, which was, whether a mutual 
Council had been unreasonably refused, and submitted the follow- 
ing resolution, which he supported in some subsequent remarks. 

Resolved, That this Council will now proceed to consider and decide 
whether circumstances exist, justifying this Body to proceed as an ex- 
parte Council in the case between the Rev. John Pierpont and the Pro- 
prietors of Hollis street Meeting House. 

Mr Dexter, in behalf of the Proprietors, said that being igno- 
rant of the mode of proceeding in Ecclesiastical bodies, he did not 
know at what time it would be proper for him to speak, but that 
at such time as the Council might determine, he should wish to be 
heard upon this point. 

Mr Lothcop wished to direct attention to that part of Mr 
Pierponfs document, in which he professed a readiness, should 
the Council advise him to that effect, to appear before this body 
and show evidence of an agreement between himself and the 
Proprietors, for a mutual Council, and asked if it would not be a 
more direct course to attend to this point and advise Mr Pierpont 
to appear before us for this purpose. 

Dr Palfrey thought his resolution did not conflict with that point, 
that should it be adopted it would then be in order, and proper to 
advise Mr Pierpont to appear before us for that purpose. 

Rev. Mr Gannett said that his own mind had been much im- 
pressed by the suggestions made at the conclusion of Mr Pierpont's 
document, that he felt the difficulties which presented themselves 
in attempting, with a due regard to the rights and claims of all 
the parties interested, to settle this matter, by a mutual or an ex- 
parte Council, he would therefore move to strike out all after the 
word resolved, and insert the following as an amendment. 

Resolved, That in view of the difficulties which already present them- 
selves to this Council, and from a desire to take that course, which may 
most speedily lead to a final adjustment of the present controversy, this 
Council, before deciding upon the propriety of their acting as an ex- 
parte Council, will communicate to the Proprietors of the Hollis Street 
Meeting House, with the proposition with which the Document just read 
from the Rev. John Pierpont concludes, that if they should see fit to ac- 
cept said proposition, this Council may then by the consent of the par- 
ties to this controversy proceed to act as a " Mutual Council." 

This amendment was supported by Rev. Mr Gannett, and op- 
posed by Rev. Dr Palfrey, and Mr S. A. Eliot. The question being 
taken on the amendment, it was adopted, and the Resolution as 
amended, passed. 

Rev. Mr Ripley here made inquiry as to the manner in which 
questions should be decided in this body, and suggested that it was 
usual in Ecclesiastical Councils to take the vote by ayes and noes. 



60 



After some conversation, it was, on motion of Rev. Dr Froth- 

INGHAM, 

Voted, That in this Council the vote shall be taken by raising the 
hand, except when the " ayes and noes are called for." 

Rev. Mr Gannett then offered the following vote in reference 
to the resolution already adopted, which was passed. 

Voted, That the Scribe of the Council be directed to communicate to 
the Committee of the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, from 
whom the Letters Missive convoking this Council were received, the pro- 
ceeding Resolution, together with a copy of the proposition to which it 
refers. 

Rev. Mr Baerett moved that the Council take a recess of half 
an hour, to allow time for this communication to be made and an 
answer returned. 

Rev. Mr Gannett contended that no time ought to be allowed. 
Mr Dexter, in behalf of the Proprietors, asked for more time and 
to be furnished with a copy, or entrusted with the original of the 
document received from Rev. Mr Pierpont. 

Mr Gannett contended that the whole document was not relev- 
ant to the question to be submitted to the Committee of the Pro- 
prietors, and that by the vote just past they would be furnished 
with a copy of so much of the document as did refer to that ques- 
tion. 

Mr Dexter did not press his request. After some further conver- 
sation in respect to the time requisite for the Committee of the 
Proprietors to return an answer, it was finally, on motion of Mr 
D. R. Chapman, 

Voted, That the Council do now adjourn to meet in this place to-mor 
row morning at 9 o'clock. 

Adjourned. 

Wednesday, Feb. 17. 

The Council met at 9 o'clock, according to adjournment. Rev. 
Dr Greenwood offered prayers. 

Mr Dexter, in behalf of the Committee of Proprietors, returned 
their answer to the proposition of Rev. John Pierpont, communicated 
to them yesterday, which was as follows : — 

REPLY OF THE PROPRIETORS' COMMITTEE TO MR. PIERPONT'S 
PROPOSAL. 

To the Ecclesiastical Council now sitting in the District Court Room, in 
Boston. 

The Committee of the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting 
House, have carefully considered that portion of Mr Pierpont's 
Protest which was communicated to them by vote of the Council. 
The Committee have been desirous to answer it explicitly ; but, 
after much reflection, they have been unable to extract from it 



61 



any proposition sufficiently distinct and definite to be answered by 
a simple assent or dissent ; besides which, it apparently seeks to 
introduce new parties, and new subjects of consideration, which, 
to say the least could not conveniently be comprehended within 
the jurisdiction of the Council. The Committee consider that 
there can be but two parties to this investigation, viz. the Pastor, 
and the Society, acting by its legal majority. But the Committee 
are happy to believe, from the concluding clause of the vote, that 
the Council have taken a more simple view of this portion of the 
protest, which enables the Committee to give an answer which, 
they hope, will be satisfactory to the Council. 

That is to say, the Committee, having always been desirous of 
a mutual Council, will gladly agree, and now propose, that this 
Council shall be considered and adopted by the Pastor of Hollis 
Street Meeting House, on the one part, and by the Proprietors on 
the other part, as a mutual Council, to hear and determine as a 
mutual Ecclesiastical Council, and with all the powers, direct and 
incidental, of such a body, either, those matters of complaint, now 
preferred by the Society against their Pastor, or all matters of 
complaint now and heretofore preferred by the Society against him 
— at his election. And they will further agree, if Mr Pierpont 
shall so elect, that the decision of the Council, upon all matters 
proper to be submitted to an Ecclesiastical Council, shall be con- 
clusive, and finally binding on both parties, and maybe so pleaded, 
in any suit at law, or in equity, which either party may institute. 
Signed, 

JOSHUA CRANE, ^ 

JOHN D. WILLIAMS, 

DANIEL WELD, Committee of 

WM. W. CLAPP, }> Hollis Street 

TIMOTHY TILESTON, Society. 

RUEL BAKER, 

WARREN WHITE, 

Feb. 17th, 1841. 

A true copy, 

S. K. LOTHROP, 

Scribe of the Council. 

After the reading of this communication, Rev. Mr Young offer- 
ed the following Resolution, which was seconded by Mr W. Bailey, 

Resolved, That a copy of the answer made by the Proprietors of the 
Hollis Street Meeting House to the proposition of Rev. Mr Pierpont, 
submitted to them, be communicated to him, and that he be requested to 
return an answer at the next session of this Council. 

After some discussion, and the rejection of several amendments, 
this resolution was passed, and the following gentlemen, Rev. Alex- 
ander Young, Rev. Dr Palfrey, and Rev. E. S. Gannett, appoint- 
ed a Committee to make this communication to Rev. John Pierpont. 

On motion of Rev. Mr Ripley, the Council adjourned to meet 
at 3 o'clock, P. M. Adjourned; 



62 



3 o'clock, P. M. 

The Council assembled according to adjournment. 

Rev. Mr Young, from the Committee appointed to wait on Rev. 
Mr Pierpont, reported that the Committee had attended to that duty, 
and that Mr Pierpont would make a communication to the Council 
in answer to the proposition of the Committee of the Proprietors, 
at three o'clock. 

The Council waited some time without receiving the expected 
answer. 

Mr Pierpont then made a verbal communication to the Council, 
through the Scribe, asking an extension of time, as he had found it 
impossible during the three hours that had intervened since the ad- 
journment of the Council, to frame such an answer to the proposi- 
tion of the Proprietors as its importance demanded. 

After some conversation, it was 

Voted, To extend the time for Mr Pierpont to prepare his answer, to 9 
o'clock, tomorrow morning, and to adjourn to meet at that hour. 

Adjourned. 

Thursday, 18th, 9 o'clock, A. M. 

The Council met according to adjournment. Prayer was offer- 
ed by Rev. Mr Barrett. 

The Scribe read the Records of the preceding days, and stated 
that he had received a communication from the Rev. Mr Pierpont, 
which was ordered to be read as follows : 

REPLY TO A PROPOSAL OP THE PROPRIETORS' COMMITTEE. 
To the Churches, convoked and sitting as an ex-parte Council, in the Dis- 
trict Court Room, Boston. 

Christian Brethren : — The proposition with which I closed 
the Reasons for my not having accepted the second call of the 
Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, for a mutual Eccle- 
siastical Council, and consequently, for my not appearing and an- 
swering before you, when called, organized and sitting as an ex- 
parte Council, I offered to the party adverse to me, in a sincere 
desire for peace, — and, as I thought then, and still think, in a 
spirit of concession and conciliation. I am willing to abide by the 
opinion, both of these churches and of this community, as to its 
frankness, and as to my willingness to bring to an end a long 
and most trying controversy. 

When the communication from the Proprietors' Committee, 
which you did me the favor to send to me to-day, was first read 
to me by the Chairman of the Committee of your body, who 
brought it, and when I first run my eye over it, I felt the pleasing 
hope, that we were near the final close of a long and painful strife : 
for I saw that 1 could, as I thought, entirely obviate one of the 
objections which the Proprietors' Committee had made to my pro- 
position : — and this hope — amounting almost to a persuasion, I 



63 



was prompt in expressing to the Committee of your body, who 
waited upon me. 

But, on closer examination of that paper, I see that my young 
hope is doomed to be short-lived. 

The Committee of the Proprietors make two objections to my 
proposal. One is, that it " apparently seeks to introduce new 
parties :" and I said to myself — I will entirely withdraw this ob- 
jectionable feature from my offer, and let it embrace the original 
parties only, namely, the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting 
House, and myself ; — and, this T would gladly do ; for I think 
that the objection is not without reason. 

But, on an attentive consideration of the second objection to my 
proposal, — to wit, "that it is not sufficiently distinct and definite," 
and on a comparison of my offer, in respect to definiteness, with 
the one which they make as a substitute for mine — it seems to 
me that, in their close attention to the mote in my eye, they have 
overlooked the beam that is in their own. They say that, " after 
much reflection they have been unable to extract from my offer 
any proposition sufficiently distinct and definite to be answered by 
a simple assent or dissent." They do not therefore accept my 
proposition. 

But though, from my proposition, they cannot extract any thing 
sufficiently distinct and definite to enable them to answer it with a 
simple assent or dissent ; — in that which they offer as a substitute 
for mine, I have been able to extract a proposition sufficiently in- 
definite, not only to enable, but to compel me to dissent from it en- 
tirely. Among other things, they offer to agree, if I so elect, that 
the decision of the Council, which they propose, " upon all matters 
proper to be submitted to an Ecclesiastical Council" shall be con- 
clusive and finally binding upon both parties. Will the Committee 
of the Proprietors attempt to tell me definitely how wide is the door 
that, in these words, is opened for future controversies upon the 
question, What are proper matters to be referred to an Ecclesias- 
tical Council ? Or, will they first furnish me with a Council that 
shall determine this question, when the parties cannot ? What se- 
curity have I that the very " Grounds of Complaint" preferred 
by themselves against me, last July, would not be judged by one 
party or both, to be not " matters proper to be submitted to an 
Ecclesiastical Council" ? An intimation, precisely to that effect, 
was made by one of the Churches of this city, last fall, in regard 
to those very " Grounds," and that, as one of her reasons for not 
accepting the invitation of Hollis Street Church, to sit upon the 
Council to which they should be submitted. As a means of clo- 
sing up this controversy, I cannot consent to open so wide a door to 
as many other controversies as there are questions to be settled in 
this. I wish the decision of the Council before which I appear, to 
be conclusive and binding upon all matters that, by the parties are 
submitted to it. And for that reason, among others, I have insist- 



64 



ed upon seeing distinctly what those matters are to be, before sub- 
mitting them — or myself — to any Council. 

The proposal of the Propietors is objectionable in another point. 
They propose that " this Council" shall be considered and adopt- 
ed by myself on one part, and the Proprietors of Hollis Street 
Meeting House on the other, as a mutual Council. Now, that 
" the churches here represented — organized and sitting as a mu- 
tual Council," should be the tribunal before which matters agreed 
upon by the parties should be carried for final judgment, I have 
even proposed ; — of course I could not object to the same propo- 
sal now. But " the Churches here represented" are one thing ; 
— " this Council" is another — " this Council," called as an ex- 
parte Council, for an ex-parte purpose, and constantly looking to 
its ex-parte Letters Missive for instruction in regard to its object, 
limitations and duties. 

And, once more, the proposal of the Proprietors' Committee, is 
wholly inadmissible in this respect. It leaves me to choose, wheth- 
er shall be brought before the Council, " those matters of com- 
plaint now (i. e., in the second call,) preferred by the Society 
against their Pastor," or, all matters of complaint now and hereto- 
fore preferred against him." Does this alternative leave me free 
to take the complaints put upon the Eecords, ten months ago, and 
the specific " Grounds of Complaint," preferred against me, last 
July, as reasons for the dissolution of connexion sought by the Pro- 
prietors, and have them adjudicated alone ? No. The complaints 
preferred against me in October, to which I have objected, from 
the first, for their utter indefiniteness, I may, if I choose, take 
alone : or I may take them with the definite ones of July. But 
those of July, I may not take, without coupling with them those of 
October. They offer me not alone, now, those which they offered 
me alone in July, and which we agreed to go to trial upon ; but, if 
I take those " Grounds" now, I must take with them others that I 
have never agreed, but have always refused, to submit ; — at least, 
till the July grounds of complaint were decided, or withdrawn with 
my consent, and the substance of them retracted most fully from 
the Records of Hollis Street Society. 

Again ; — the general question of the dissolution of my connex- 
ion, as matter of expediency, " all things considered," which it is 
the object of the second call of the Proprietors to get before first a 
mutual, and now an ex-parte council, they know, full well, that I 
have, from the first, refused to submit to any Council ; at least till 
the specific charges or grounds of complaint made, last July, for a 
specific object, viz. " As Reasons for the dissolution of my con- 
nexion with the Society" — shall have been deliberated and deci- 
ded upon, by a mutual Council, called for that purpose by the par- 
ties, according to their solemn agreement ; — as stated to the Pro- 
prietors last November, and to these churches sitting as an ex- 
parte Council, yesterday, in the Reasons then assigned why I do 



65 



not appear and make answer before the Churches now assembled 
as such Council. 

I trust, Christian Brethren, that this is sufficiently definite to be 
understood by your body, whether it be so or not by the Proprie- 
tors 1 Committee. 

Since, then, that Committee cannot accept my last proposition, 
because, among other things, it is not distinct and definite ; and 
since I cannot accent their substitute, because, among other things, 
it is distinctly indefinite, the question returns upon you, Brethren, 
whether the Reasons that I assigned to you yesterday, for my re- 
fusing to appear before you and make answer, are sufficient to 
justify me in so doing. If, on weighing those Reasons with the 
candor and the care which you owe to yourselves, Brethren, as 
men " set for the defence of the Gospel," and consequently for 
the defence of its strong hold — the pulpit — you think my rea- 
sons not sufficient to justify me in declining the second Council 
offered me by the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House — 
their engagements with me for the first, still remaining unperform- 
ed on their part ; — you will, as you must feel yourselves in duty 
bound, so decide ; and leave your judgement to be affirmed or re- 
versed in the higher court to which it will be carried by the party 
asking it at your hands. But, if, in your opinion, the Reasons I 
have assigned are sufficient to justify me in the course that I have 
taken in the premises, your judgment to that effect, expressed to 
the party at whose call you are now sitting, as an Ecclesiastical 
Council, may have the effect to induce them to come back to the 
ground where, six months ago, they asked me to stand with them 
in judgement, upon accusations by them brought against me : — 
ground where I still stand ; and where, if they refuse to meet me 
in judgment here, I must stand, till I am called to meet them be- 
fore a tribunal whose decisions can be neither avoided nor reversed. 
With Christian Salutations, 

Your friend and Brother, 

JNO. PIERPONT. 

After the reading of this document it was, on motion of Rev. 
Dr Greenwood, 

Voted, That the communication from the Rev. John Pierpont, received 
this morning, be laid upon the table. 

The Scribe then said, that the Council was now brought back to 
the point at which it was when the Remonstrance from the Rev. 
Mr Pierpont was received, and before the vote was passed to com- 
municate the proposition at the close of that remonstrance to the 
Committee of the Proprietors, and that the vote at that time offered 
by his colleague from Brattle Street, was in order. On his motion 
that vote was taken up and passed, as follows : — 

Voted, That this Council will now proceed to consider and decide 

9 



» 



66 

whether circumstances exist, justifying this body to proceed as an ex- 
parte Council in the case, between the Rev. John Pierpont and the Pro- 
prietors of Hollis Street Meeting House. 

On motion of the Scribe it was also 

Voted, That it now be signified to the Committee of the Proprietors, 
that this Council is ready to receive any statement or communication 
they may wish to make upon the matter embraced in the preceding vote, 

On motion of Rev. Dr Frothingham, 

Voted, That the remonstrance against the action of this Council, re- 
ceived from Rev. John Pierpont, on Tuesday last, be now placed in the 
hands of the Committee of the Proprietors, for their examination and re- 
ply- 

On motion of Rev. Dr Palfrey, 

Voted, That a copy of the votes this morning passed be communicated 
to the Rev. John Peirpont, and that he be informed that this Council is 
now ready to afford him a hearing on his Remonstrance, or to receive 
from him such communications as he may see fit to make. 

Mr Dexter, in behalf of the Proprietors, said that the Remon- 
strance which had been now first placed in their hands, was a doc- 
ument drawn up with great care, and containing several important 
allegations, that he thought the proceedings of the Council would 
be hastened rather than retarded by allowing ample time for 
answer to be made to it, and suggested to the Council an adjourn- 
ment to Monday morning next. 

Whereupon, on motion of the Scribe, 

Voted, That when this Council adjourns, it adjourn to meet at this place, 
on Monday morning next, at 9 o'clock. 

The Rev. Mr Gannett submitted the following vote : 

Voted, That a Committee of this Council be appointed to inquire and 
ascertain what conditions must be observed by the ex-parte Council, to 
render its result a ground of judgment on the part of the Supreme Judi- 
cial Court of this Commonwealth : said Committee to report at the next 
session of this Council. 

This measure was opposed by Rev. Dr Palfrey and Mr Eliot, 
as unnecessary and improper, these conditions being the very 
points upon which we were to hear the Counsel for the Proprietors 
and the Remonstrant, if he chose to appear ; and sustained by Rev. 
Mr Gannett, as not interfering, or intended by him to interfere, 
with what they might have to offer. 

After some discussion, the question being taken, it was decided 
in the negative. Adjourned. 

Monday, Feb. 22, 1841. 
The Council met at 9 o'clock, according to adjournment. Prayer 
was offered by the Scribe, and the Records of the preceding ses- 
sion read. 

The Scribe gave notice that by a vote of the Brattle Street 



67 



Church, the Rev. Dr Palfrey had been excused, at his request, 
from further service as a delegate representing that church on this 
Council, and that Hon. Richard Sullivan had been appointed a 
delegate in his place. 

The Scribe also said, that he had been requested, and was au- 
thorized by the friends of the party remonstrating against the 
action of this Council, to say, that with leave of the Council, they 
should be glad to print, at their own expense, and for the use of 
the Council, the Rev. Mr Pierpont's Remonstrance and Reply to 
the proposition of the Committee. 

On motion of the Scribe, it was 

Voted, That they have leave to print. 

The Moderator then stated, that the business before the Council 
was to inquire whether circumstances existed to justify its proceed- 
ing as an ex-parte Council, and that upon this point the Council 
was ready to hear whatever the Proprietors might have to offer in 
reply to the Remonstrance which had been laid before it. 

Whereupon Mr Dexter, in behalf of the Proprietors, addressed 
an argument to the Council to show that a mutual Council had 
been unreasonably refused by the Remonstrant, and that the cir- 
cumstances were such as to justify the call and action of an ex- 
parte Council. 

Mr Dexter occupied the attention of the Council till half-past 
one o'clock, when he gave way to a motion for adjournment, and 
on motion of Mr D. R. Chapman, 

Voted, That the Council do now adjourn, to meet again at half-past 3 
o'clock, this day. 

Adjourned. 

Half-past 3 o'clock. 

The Council assembled at half-past three, and Mr Dexter re- 
sumed his argument, and closed at quarter past five. 

The Rev. Mr Pierpont was then informed by the Moderator, that 
the Council was ready to hear him, if he wished, by himself or 
legal counsel, to say any thing upon the question now before the 
Council. 

As the hour was late, and the Council would be unable to hold a 
Session on Tuesday, Mr Pierpont asked to be excused from enter- 
ing upon his reply this evening, and that the Council would adjourn 
to Wednesday afternoon. 

On motion of the Scribe, 

Voted, That the Council do now adjourn, to meet in this place on Wed- 
nesday next, at 3 o'clock, P. M. 



Adjourned. 



68 



ABSTRACT OF MR. DEXTER'S ARGUMENT, PREPARED BY THE 
SCRIBE FROM MINUTES TAKEN BY HIM. 

After some introductory remarks, Mr Dexter said the first point 
of inquiry was, What conditions are required for the action of an 
ex-parte Council ? They are three : 1st, That mutual council has 
been offered. 2d, That it has been refused. 3d, That it has been 
refused without reason. These conditions exist in the present 
case : 1st, The proprietors invited Mr Pierpont to unite with them 
in calling a mutual council, enclosing a general statement of rea- 
sons. 2d, Mr Pierpont declined uniting in this call for two rea- 
sons ; 1st, That the general statement of charges or reasons were 
too vague, indefinite, general, and 2d, Because the parties are al- 
ready under agreement to go before a mutual council on certain 
terms, certain specific charges. Here are the first two conditions. 
The call was made and was declined. The question is, has the 
call been unreasonably declined. 

Mr D. contended that it had been unreasonably declined ; that 
the first reason offered by Rev. Mr Pierpont for declining, viz : 
that " the statement of reasons was too vague and general" was 
not sustained by an examination of that statement. The reasons 
set forth in that statement were sufficient cause for the assembling 
of a Council, and contained matter proper for an ex-parte Council 
to deliberate and decide upon. The law requires that the pastor 
shall be furnished with a general statement of the reasons for 
which he is invited to unite in calling a mutual Council for these 
purposes : 1st, That if the charges affect not simply his clerical, 
but moral character, charges of grave immoralities, he may refuse 
and resign, if he chooses, without having them investigated by a 
Council. 2d, That if frivolous and trifling, or not of sufficient im- 
portance to be submitted to a Council, he may decline or refuse so 
to do: (vide 7 Pick. 164. Thompson v. Rehoboth.) Examine the 
charges, almost any one of them sufficient, all of them united cer- 
tainly a sufficient ground for calling a Council ; because if proved 
to be well founded, they furnish sufficient cause for a dissolution of 
the Pastoral connexion. 

This ground of remonstrance, that the charges were of too 
vague and general a character, Mr Dexter contended was founded 
in a mistake as to the nature and jurisdiction of an Ecclesiastical 
Tribunal, that there was a great difference between an ex-parte 
Council and a court of law. The latter tries men for their actions, 
the other tries men for their character and habits of action and 
conduct. The one tries men by an indictment under a statute, in 
which the offence must be specifically set forth, and after trial com- 
mences, must proceed " de die in diem." The other is an equita- 
ble tribunal, to try men not according to the technicalities of a 
statute under the specifications of an indictment, but on general 
grounds of equity, and common sense, and by adjournment from 



69 



time to time can allow time for the party, whose conduct is to be 
investigated before it, to make reply and defence. 

Mr Dexter contended that there was no warrant of law for the 
particularity of statement, that the remonstrant insisted upon, and 
no warrant for any statement being furnished to the party invited 
to unite in calling a mutual council, except what was to be found 
in the decision of the court in the case of Thompson v. Rehoboth. 
already referred to. That it was a novel doctrine that, before an 
Ecclesiastical Council there must be a minute and particular spe- 
cification of facts or charges, and could not be sustained. To make 
a minute specification of facts might lead to the exclusion of im- 
portant facts coming to the knowledge of the party calling the 
Council afler the specification was made out, and which they ought 
to be allowed to present to the Council. In a court of law, and a 
question to be tried before a jury, specification of facts is necessary 
and proper, but the very object and purpose of an ecclesiastical 
tribunal, of a Council, was to try questions that cannot be submit- 
ted to a jury, and therefore a general statement is all that is neces- 
sary. Minute specifications are not required. Refer to the case 
of Thompson v. Rehoboth, 5 Pick. p. 479. ; also to Burr v. Sand- 
wich, 9th Mass. p. 265., and Avery v. Tyringham, 3d Mass, pp. 
176-182. 

Mr Dexter contended that the question of general expediency 
was almost always the main question before a Council, and that its 
decision or advice was not necessarily formed upon and did not ne- 
cessarily imply great fault in either party. For this main ques- 
tion, a general statement was sufficient, and in the absence of all 
rule of law requiring minute specifications of facts, the question 
whether a council should proceed ex-parte, was one to be deter- 
mined by principles and judgment of common sense. 

Mr Dexter contended that the first objection in Rev. Mr Pier- 
pont's remonstrance not appearing in the records given at the time, 
for declining to unite in a mutual Council, was not strictly admissi- 
ble, the court having decided that all the reasons for refusal ought 
to be given at the time. But he was willing to consider any and 
all objections he might offer. 

This objection alleges that Rev. Mr Pierpont offered an unlimited 
mutual Council on 7th October, 1839, and it was declined. 

Admitting the fact to be as stated, Mr Dexter contended that, be- 
cause the Proprietors refused a mutual Council once, it did not fol- 
low that they could never after claim, ask for, or offer one ; that 
their refusal did not act as a perpetual bar to their ever having 
one ; that there was no other case in which this rule would be al- 
lowed. And if circumstances had changed, the argument was still 
stronger that the refusal ought not to be a bar to a mutual Council. 
Circumstances had changed ; this change was produced by Rev. 
Mr Pierpont's letter of 27th of October. 

But Mr Dexter contended that the allegation was not true in 



70 



fact, if the records of the Society were to be relied upon. That 
the records of the meeting of the proprietors for October 7th, 
1839, consisted of a letter from Rev. Mr Pierpont, and proceedings 
occasioned thereby. Mr Dexter admitted this letter offered a mu- 
tual Council, but not to decide on all matters ; but made an issue 
on a particular point, viz ; " his efforts in the temperance cause," 
and proposed to submit that to a mutual Council. He could not 
expect that offer would be accepted ; the proposition is unreasona- 
ble. The issue is kept to a single point. There is no evidence in 
this letter of an offer of a mutual Council to try all matters. Yet 
there must be some color for the assertion in the remonstrance. 
What color ? What ground is there ? It appears from the re- 
cords of this meeting, that Mr James Boyd, not professing to be 
authorized, or to act as Mr Pierpont's agent, did offer to the meet- 
ing certain votes, by which the Proprietors were to propose a mu- 
tual Council to Mr Pierpont. Subsequently Mr Pierpont declares 
that he authorised Mr Boyd. It was not known at the time ? Why 
was it not so stated. It appears from the records that Mr Child 
offered counter votes, and both those of Mr Boyd and Mr Child 
were referred to a committee. 

To show in what manner and for what purpose Mr Boyd offered 
those votes, Mr Dexter referred to a pamphlet, " Proceedings in 
Controversy," p. 53, and p. 44 of a pamphlet " Proceedings at a 
Meeting," for Mr Pierpont's account of the same transaction, and 
contended that Rev. Mr Pierpont's account was not true. The 
votes were not appended. Mr Boyd did not say he spoke at the re- 
quest or by authority of Mr Pierpont, and if he did so speak, it 
was not known. The offer therefore, was not made by Rev. Mr 
Pierpont. The assertion is not literally or substantially true. 

But the remonstrance says the offer was rejected, because there 
was nothing for a mutual Council to decide between them. This 
is a suppression of the truth. Why was there nothing to decide 
between them ? Mr Boyd's votes were submitted to a committee. 
This committee, at a meeting on the 14th of October, reported 
that there was nothing for the Council to decide, because Mr Pier- 
pont had said, " the society in' its corporate capacity asked me to 
come, and in its corporate capacity it can ask me to go." The 
committee reported in favor of rejecting the proposition of Mr 
Boyd, and this report was itself rejected, the friends of Mr Pier- 
pont being a majority in the meeting at which it was finally acted 
upon. (Vide p. 58 " Proceedings in Controversy," Nov. 11th.) 

The third ground of the " remonstrance" is, that the parties are 
already under agreement, &c. 

To this, Mr Dexter replied, 1st, That if the allegation was true, 
that if Proprietors had been under such an agreement, and the 
agreement had been broken up, and broken up, by error or mistake 
on the part of Proprietors, it was no bar to the future proceedings ; 
and 2d, that if the agreement did once exist, it was broken by Rev. 



71 



Mr Pierpont himself. The parties came to a disagreement before 
they came to a tribunal, and in that stage of the business, at the 
point of the disagreement, Rev. Mr Pierpont broke up the whole 
arrangement by his individual precipitate action, so that in fact, 
the parties never were fully under agreement. 

The course of proceedings was this. At a meeting on the 6th 
of April, the Proprietors voted to dismiss Mr Pierpont for certain 
reasons ; if he declined to accede to the vote of dismission, a com- 
mittee, chosen for the purpose, were to take measures for a mutual 
Council, and prepare a statement of charges, &c. 

These votes were communicated to Mr Pierpont. The vote re- 
specting a Council was theirs : 

Voted, That the Committee be authorized to invite Rev. J. Pierpont to 
unite with them in calling a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, to inquire into 
the grounds of complaint and dissatisfaction, and consider and determine 
whether or not the pastoral connexion ought any longer to exist. 

Mr Pierpont declining to accede to the vote of dismission, after 
some correspondence between him and Mr Crane, Chairman of the 
Committee, the 17th of April was fixed upon as a time for an in- 
terview. On that day the committee waited upon Mr Pierpont at 
his study. He expressed himself ready to go before a Council, 
when the committee had drawn up and presented to him a state- 
ment of charges, in accordance with the vote of 6th of April. 

The committee attended to this matter, and on the 27th of July, 
sent to Mr Pierpont a communication, with this title, " Articles, or 
Grounds of Complaint, preferred against the Rev. John Pierpont, by 
a committee of the Proprietors of Hollis Street Church, to be sub- 
mitted to a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, as reasons for a dissolu- 
tion of his pastoral connexion with them." This communication 
was enclosed in a letter stating the readiness of the Committee of 
the Proprietors to go before a Mutual Council on these charges. 
Mr Pierpont sent it back, to have the signatures of the Committee 
attached to the document itself. 

The Committee returned the document to Mr Pierpont on the 1st 
of August, signed by them, with a letter of explanation, directing 
his attention to a few lines at the close of the statement of charges, 
implying the right of Committee to introduce any new facts in re- 
lation to the matters in difference between them. 

Mr Pierpont in reply takes no notice of this explanation of the 
Committee, thereby admitting and recognizing it as correct ; ex- 
presses his readiness to make the further preliminary arrange- 
ments, and says that when these are agreed upon and " the tenor 
of the Letters Missive is settled by the parties," the church will be 
ready to issue them. His correspondence shows that he consider- 
ed the tenor of Letters Missive important, and a matter to be mutu- 
ally agreed upon by both parties. 

After all other preliminary arrangements were made, Mr Pier- 
pont, on 31st of August, writes to the committee that the n^xt Sun- 



72 



day will be the regular church meeting, and suggested that appli- 
cation might then be made to the church, on that day. 

On the 3d of September the Committee answered by enclosing 
an application to the church to issue letters, to be signed by Mr 
Pierpont and laid before the church. 

On the 4th of September, Mr Pierpont answered, objecting to 
the form of application proposed by Committee, refusing to sign it, 
preparing another, and stating, however, that he would lay their 
application before the church, accompanied by another application 
from himself to have the church issue its Letters Missive in the 
form he proposed. 

Mr Crane answered, objecting to Mr Pierpont's form, stating that 
absence from town made it impossible for him to get the Commit- 
tee together before Sunday. Admitted by both parties, that in 
consequence of negligence on the part of the person to whom it 
was entrusted, this note, which should have reached Mr Pierpont 
on Saturday, did not reach him till Sunday, P. M., Sept. 5. Mr 
Pierpont laid the matter before his church on that day. No reply 
was sent to Mr Crane's note. No information had been sent to 
the Committee that their application as sent to Mr Pierpont had 
been laid before the church. After waiting some days, the Com- 
mittee addressed a letter to the church, making three inquiries : 
1st, whether their application had been signed by Rev. Mr Pier- 
pont, as they expected it would be and ought to have been, before 
it was communicated to them : 2d, whether the Letters Missive 
which they understood the church was about to issue, limited the 
powers of the Council : and 3d, they asked to see these Letters Mis- 
sive. The church in reply, does not answer either of these ques- 
tions, but says the letters are ready, when Proprietors will fix upon 
the time. 

The Proprietors replied by saying that they would fix a time 
when all other preliminaries were settled. The letters having been 
issued, the Proprietors sent a communication to the several church- 
es invited, stating that they had never consented to the issuing of 
such Letters Missive, and when some of these churches assembled, 
they protested against their action. 

Such, insisted Mr Dexter, are the facts in relation to the third 
ground of remonstrance, that the parties are already under agree- 
ment to go before a mutual Council on certain specific charges. 

In point of fact, there was no agreement ; there was an agree- 
ment partially made, an agreement as to the number of churches, 
what churches, ,&c. ; an agreement as to everything except the 
mode in which the Council should be called ; not the mere form, 
but the substantial power the Council should have. There was no 
agreement carried out to the end, and finally closed, and therefore 
there was no agreement. 

That the tenor of the Letters Missive was considered by Rev. Mr 
Pierpont an important part of the agreement, he contended was 



73 



evident from the correspondence, and also that it had not been set- 
tled, because Rev. Mr Pierpont distinguishes " tenor" from time 
and place. Here the parties separated before they came to a final 
agreement ; and from this time to the assembling of the so-called 
Mutual Council, the parties had no communication. 

But, Mr Dexter contended that though the " tenor of the Letters 
Missive' 1 was not distinctly and expressly agreed upon it ; yet it 
was implied throughout the correspondence what that " tenor" 
should be, and the letters as issued by the church were not in con- 
formity with what it was implied in that correspondence it should 
be. He here referred to the vote of 6th of April, the basis of the 
whole transaction, as manifestly contemplating nothing peculiar in 
the character of Council. He referred to the fact, that the com- 
mittee called his attention to the sentence at the close of the 
grounds and reasons, and argued that as Mr Pierpont takes no no- 
tice of this, but still consented to go before a Council, he admitted 
that the Council was to have power to come to a general result, as 
to whether, under the circumstances, the connexion ought any 
longer to continue : yet when he asks the church to issue its Letters 
Missive, he causes them to be framed on a narrower basis. 

Which party therefore, asked Mr Dexter, broke the agreement ; 
the party who is willing to go before an unrestricted Council, or the 
party who took it into his hands, in the absence of all agreement, 
to determine what should be the tenor of Letters Missive ? 

This will be answered by asking what other questions could be 
brought before the Council, but the two contained in the Letters 
Missive issued from the former Council. He referred to several 
cases to show that the examination into the charges might, even if 
their truth were not proved beyond all doubt, have excited such 
grave suspicion of their truth that the Council might think it right 
that the connexion should be dissolved. The examination might 
unfold such a state of things in the parish as to satisfy the Council 
that the connexion should be dissolved. Mr Dexter contended 
therefore, in reply to the third ground of remonstrance, that there 
was not an agreement fully made, and that before all the condi- 
tions were finally adjusted, the agreement was broken by the pre- 
cipitate action of Rev. Mr Pierpont and his church. 

In reply to the intimation in protest, that the former Council 
failed through the act of the Proprietors, in sending to their church- 
es their statement ; he said that if the statement had that effect, it 
was true, and the Proprietors were bound to make it. It may be, 
he continued, objected that this Council is not called to deliberate 
and decide upon the same grounds and reasons that were present- 
ed before. 

The reply to this is, that on the failure of the former Council, 
the Proprietors were obliged to begin " de novo" 

They are not obliged to present the same charges, especially if 
10 



74 



there are any good reasons why they should not. They have such 
reasons. 

Some of the churches objected to trying immoralities by an Ec- 
clesiastical Council. Therefore some of the former charges were 
dropped ; but to prevent Mr Pierpont's being prejudiced in his 
character, they distinctly stated in their letter inviting him to a 
new Council, that after they had presented their statement of rea- 
sons, he might present the charges of 27th of July last ; after they 
had presented their statement, not after Council had acted upon 
them. Mr Dexter contended, that it could be urged as a legal bar, 
that the Proprietors do not present the same charges. It was a 
new transaction. He said that the parish, however, would do jus- 
tice to Mr Pierpont in relation to the old charges and were ready 
to receive any advice or direction from Council in relation to them. 
They were put upon the records simply in order to comply with 
the same. The court having decided that a vote of dismissal is in- 
valid, unless the reasons for the dismissal are appended. He con- 
tended that the charges on the record were substantially the same 
as those now presented. 

A Committee might have tiled new charges. Among those pre- 
sented 27th of July, in starting " de novo" bring new and other 
charges. 

Wednesday, Feb. 24. 

The Council met this day at 3 o'clock, P. M. Prayer was of- 
fered by Rev. Mr Young. After the reading of the journal, the 
Moderator stated that the business before the Council was the in- 
quiry whether or not it should proceed ex-parte, and that upon this 
point it was now in order for Rev. Mr Pierpont to be heard. 

Mr Pierpont then addressed the Council, to sustain his remon- 
strance and to present evidence of the facts and allegations set 
forth therein. 

At quarter after five he gave way to a motion for adjournment, 
and on motion of Rev. Mr Barrett, 

Voted, That the Council do now adjourn, to meet in this place at nine 
o'clock, tomoiTOW morning. 

Adjourned. 

Thursday, Feb. 25. 
The Council assembled at nine o'clock, A. M. Prayer was of- 
fered by Rev. F. T. Gray. After the reading of the journal, the 
Moderator said the Council was ready to hear the Rev. Mr Pierpont 
on his remonstrance and the facts and allegations therein set forth. 
Mr Pierpont then resumed his argument, and addressed the Coun- 
cil till one o'clock, when he concluded. 



?3 



ABSTRACT OF REV. MR. PIERPONT'S REMARKS, PREPARED PARTLY 
FROM MINUTES TAKEN AT THE TIME BY THE SCRIBE, AND 
PARTLY FROM MR. PIERPONT'S OWN NOTES. 

Mr Pierpont said he appeared before the Council, not to answer 
in any manner to the matters of complaint against him proposed 
to he brought forward for the deliberation and judgment of the 
Council, but to sustain the remonstrance which he had already ad- 
dressed to the Council against its acting at all to his prejudice. 
He proposed to do this, by presenting somewhat more at large the 
reasons stated in that remonstrance, and adducing such proof as 
the Council may think necessary of the facts that, in these rea- 
sons, are set forth. Mr Pierpont contended that the first statement 
in the remonstrance was true in point of fact, and that it justified 
his refusal. After reading from the printed documents, to present 
the facts in the case, he contended that the resolutions offered by 
Mr Boyd, must have been considered by the meeting as approved 
and authorized by him, though the fact was not distinctly stated ; 
1st, because Mr Boyd presented himself to the meeting as his 
friend, was known to act as his friend, and to be in his confidence ; 
2d, because it was the object of the resolutions, as avowed by Mr 
Boyd, in offering them, to meet and carry out the spirit and propo- 
sition of his letter to the parish, which had just been read, and 3d, 
because the resolutions were regarded by the meeting as an offer 
made, were received, referred, considered, and reported upon. 
He contended that as these resolutions were offered at the same 
meeting at which his letter was read, immediately after that letter 
was read, and offered by his friend, one known to be in his confi- 
dence, they might fairly be said to be appended to that letter. 

He contended that this offer was rejected inasmuch as it was 
not accepted, and quoted Webster and Johnson to show that to re- 
fuse to accept was to reject. To the objection that the report re- 
jecting the offer of the resolutions was itself expected at a parish 
meeting at which his friends were in the majority, he contended 
that the balance of power changed hands again during the succeed- 
ing winter, and that at the meeting in March 9th, his opponents 
were again in the majority and proceeded at once to vote his dis- 
missal from office, and that vote involved of course the positive re- 
jection of the offer of a Council that should decide whether he 
should be dismissed or not, that that vote was conclusive against a 
Council, and that upon that vote the Society had acted ever since, 
not recognizing him as minister of the Society inasmuch as they 
had paid him no salary for nearly a year. If this was not re- 
jecting an offer of a Council, he did not know what could be so 
considered. 

Again, Mr Pierpont contended that the second reason of his re- 
fusal, as stated in his remonstrance, viz. the extreme generality 
and vagueness of the " Grounds and Reasons of the Call" was well 
founded and did not make his refusal unreasonable. He contend- 



76 



ed that there were two distinct bases of Ecclesiastical Councils for 
the dissolution of the ministerial relation. 

1st. What might be called an advisory Council, before which is 
brought the general, simple, or naked question, " Whether, in the 
opinion of the Council, all things considered, it is not expedient 
that the relation should be dissolved ? 

2d. Whether, upon the ground of certain specific complaints, 
allegations, or charges, the relation ought to be dissolved. 

Upon the first basis, i. e. the " general, or expediency" basis, he 
said there need be no specific allegation of any immorality, grave 
or slight. Every thing that either party chooses may come in for 
consideration — peculiarities of manner — incompatibilities of tem- 
per, general dissatisfactions or discontents — and "the parties 
having agreed to a Council upon this basis" — if the Council result 
in a recommendation of a dissolution, that result is binding. Here 
there need be no specific charges. But here, also, he contended 
that unless the minister agree to such a Council, the parish could 
not compel him to go before one ; and if on his declining their in- 
vitation they called an ex-parte Council, and that Council recom- 
mended a dissolution, on such general grounds — the Pastor could 
not be bound by the result. Sheldon v. Easton. 

He contended that in the other case, on the other basis — i.e. 
where there are specific charges as reasons for the dissolution, and 
those charges do involve allegations of immoralities the recom- 
mendation of a Council would be binding, but the attention of the 
Council must be restricted to the " Grounds of Complaint" sub- 
mitted as " Reasons of the Dissolution contemplated." tie said, 
" it is in the nature of an indictment, and substantial facts that are 
not set down cannot be brought in evidence ; nor can the Council 
go into the consideration of the general question of expediency." 

In such a case, he contended, there must be furnished to the 
minister the " Grounds of Complaint," with the specific charges 
upon which the parish rely to make out their case ; and that if 
upon these the pastor unreasonably refused a mutual Council, an 
ex-parte one might be called, and if, on being notified to appear 
and defend himself, he refused to do so, the ex-parte Council might 
proceed, and on finding the charges satisfactorily sustained, they 
might recommend a dissolution, and the Supreme Judicial Court 
would sustain their result. 

He contended from his letters of the 7th and 22d of October, 

1839, that he had proffered to his opponents a Council on the gen- 
eral basis ; that this they chose to decline ; but began in April, 

1840, upon the other basis — i. e. of specific Grounds of Complaint, 
which did involve his moral character. He contended that they 
placed their grievances upon their records, before communicating 
with him in any manner as to a Council — never proffering him 
what he had proffered them, a mutual Council upon all matters of 
©oraiplaint. 



77 



He contended that in his first interview with the Committee, on 
the 17th of April, 1840, he distinctly declined and refused to join 
with them in a Council upon the general ground of expediency, 
but told them that if they would furnish him with a written state- 
ment of their grounds of complaint, with such specifications as 
they thought proper, being careful not to leave out one of the com- 
plaints particularly, that they had put upon their records ; i. e. one 
bearing upon his integrity in his secular affairs ; he would tell them 
at once whether or not he would unite with them in going before a 
Mutual Council upon those grounds. 

This they accordingly did ; taking, therefore, not the basis of 
expediency, all things considered ; but that of specific charges in- 
volving gross immoralities. Those, as in duty bound, were made 
out with sufficient distinctness ; and had he refused a Mutual Coun- 
cil on those grounds, the parish might then have called these church- 
es as an ex-parte Council, and had a case been made out to their 
satisfaction, its result would have been conclusive against him. 

But this, he contended, he did not refuse. He accepted it, as 
he should show when he came to consider the third reason assigned 
in his remonstrance. 

And now, he contended, the Proprietors wished to bring him 
upon the general question of expediency, all things considered ; a 
basis upon which he had over and over again told them distinctly 
that he would not stand with them, after they had elected to 
place him, and had placed him upon the other, viz : upon the basis 
of specific charges. He contended that if the Proprietors meant to 
forsake the basis first assumed, it was unreasonable in them to ex- 
pect him to follow them ; and if they did not mean to forsake the 
basis first assumed, that of specific charges of gross immorality, 
these grounds and reasons are confessedly quite too indefinite, 
vague and general for him to be prepared to meet and dispose of 
them. 

Again Mr Pierpont contended, that the third statement in his re- 
monstrance that, the parties were already under agreement to go 
before a Mutual Council on certain specific charges, or " Grounds 
of Complaint," was true, and therefore his refusal to unite in calling 
this Council was not unreasonable. 

Mr Pierpont then read and commented upon the correspondence 
between himself and the Committee of the Proprietors, in relation 
to a Council, to consider the " Grounds of Complaint," preferred 
against him on the 27th of July, 1840, and contended that the 
agreement was complete, when the number of churches, and what 
churches should compose the Council was determined upon by the 
parties, that this was determined by Mr Crane's letter of Aug. 20th, 
and that the first putting forth of a hand to break the agreement, 
was the action of the Committee, in their letter to Hollis Street 
Church, dated Sept. 1, 1840. He quoted the result of the Council, 
assembled on the 15th of Oct., 1840, as evidence that the agree- 



78 



ment was complete. He contended that, that agreement was still 
in force, that it was binding upon the parties, that he would not re- 
cede and would not be driven from it. In conclusion, he said, 

Mr Moderator, — The question at issue between myself and the 
men whose names are signed to these " Grounds of Complaint," 
however unimportant to yourself, and these churches, is of vital 
importance to the parties that are in controversy before you. To 
the character of either one party or the other, it is a question of 
life or death. If mine survives the trial, theirs must die. If theirs 
lives through it, mine cannot live. And to trial, the issue between 
us, upon the charges they have brought against me, must come 
and come soon. It must come, before the tribunal provided for by 
agreement of the parties themselves, or before the higher and 
sterner tribunal of public opinion — not the public opinion of this 
goodly city, merely, but that of this great Christian community. 
Between the parties here at issue there can be no reconciliation 
except by the withdrawing of the Proprietors' complaints against 
me from their records, as unfounded and false. I say " no re- 
conciliation for, if carried to trial, my accusers or myself must 
be defeated, not reconciled. If their charges are proved true, my 
name like the memory of the wicked will rot. If neither proved 
true nor withdrawn, theirs must. 

The Committee of the Proprietors, in calling you together as an 
ex-parte Council, ask you, in effect to come to their help, and to 
protect them from their responsibility to me, by helping them to 
push me from the only place where I can hold them to their re- 
sponsibility. Are you, Sir, prepared to do this ? When the 
many and the mighty have set upon a brother, to rob him of his 
little all — the treasure of a good name which for more than twenty 
years he has been husbanding and guarding in your sight, and in 
your society — are you, Sir, ready to say to them, because they are 
many and mighty, " Christian Brethren — you need neither prove 
your charges against our brother, nor yet take them back : — we 
will help you cast him out without doing either ?" Sir, as a min- 
ister of Jesus Christ — a brother somewhat older than yourself, I 
warn you — I warn you against this. Either these men — my ac- 
cusers — have deeply wronged me, — or I have wronged them and 
my own soul. One of those white haired men, — one who has been 
daily in attendance here, and whose name, you see, Sir, is upon 
these accusations, — I profoundly pity. I forgive him the wrong he 
has done me, even before he asks me. His spirit went not with 
his hand, when he signed this paper, nor is it now left where he 
has left his name. In the infirmities brought upon him by cares 
and years he has yielded to influences which his cares und years 
have not left him the strength to resist : may God forgive him as 
I do, and as I will the rest of my accusers when they turn again 
and say " We repent." Till then, Mr Moderator, I warn you to 
beware how you do a brother wrong for the sake of making peace. 



79 



" There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked," and if you 
throw yourself between the arrows of the Almighty and their aim, 
they are swift enough and sharp enough to strike even through you 
to reach it. God is just, and justice will yet be done to my name, 
upon the very records where my enemies have now thrown upon 
it a blot. I may not live to see it, Mr Moderator, nor you. I have 
children though : one son I see in this thronged hall. I will en- 
join it upon him — nay I do now enjoin it upon you, my son, — here, 
in this temple of justice — here in the presence of the assembled 
churches of Jesus Christ — for whose ministry you are now pre- 
paring yourself — here do I in the name of Jesus Christ, enjoin it 
upon you — nay, I adjure you by the most High God, that if justice 
is not done to my name on those records while I live, you give 
your own spirit no rest, when I am dead, until it is, 

Mr Rand, in behalf of the Proprietors, then said that he under- 
stood the Rev. Mr Pierpont, in a portion of his remarks, to make 
a proposition, which the Committee of the Proprietors were per- 
fectly ready to accept, viz. to go before these Churches, as a mu- 
tual Council, on the charges preferred against him by the Commit- 
tee of the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, on the 27th 
of July last, and the charges placed upon the Records of the Pro- 
prietors, at a meeting held the 6th of April last, said Council being 
empowered to come to a general result as to the expediency of the 
dissolution of the connexion, on those charges as reasons for the 
same. 

After this statement by Mr Rand, a discussion was had, in which 
Messrs. Gannett, Ripley, Eliot, Sullivan and Lotheop, took 
part, and Messrs. Rand, Dexter, Fletcher and Rev. Mr Pier- 
font were heard, on the question whether from what had occurred 
and been said, it was probable the parties would be able to come 
together, on some mutual basis, and unite in presenting the same 
issue to the Council. In consequence of which, Rev. Mr Gannett 
offered the following vote, which was passed. 

Voted, That this Council do now adjourn, to meet in this place tomor- 
row, at nine o'clock, in the hope that the parties, by conference, or the 
exchange of communications, may be able to unite in some proposition 
that shall give to the proceedings of this Council the character and au- 
thority of a Mutual Council. 

Adjourned. 

Friday, Fee. 26. 

The Council met at nine o'clock, according to adjournment. 
Rev. J. T. Sargent offered prayer. 

The journal of the preceding session having been read, the Mod- 
erator asked if, as had been hoped when the Council adjourned the 
day before, the parties had been able, by conference or the ex- 
change of communications, to unite in some proposition that should 



80 



give to the Council the character and authority of a Mutual Coun- 
cil. In reply, the Rev. Mr Pierpont read the following communi- 
cations that had passed between the parties, from which it appear- 
ed that the parties had not been able to unite in presenting one and 
the same issue to the decision of the Council. 

Boston, February 25, 184], \ 
Half-past 8, P. M. $ 

Rev. John Pierpont, 

Sir — Not having received from you any proposition respecting- the 
proceeding of the Council, Mr Rand and myself, on behalf of the Com- 
mittee, now make to you the following proposition. 

We propose that the parties should agree, that upon the charges and 
votes of April 6th, and the statement of " Grounds of Complaint," of 
July 27th, and the evidence to be adduced under the same, the present 
Council shall consider the expediency of a dissolution, and come to such 
result, proper for an Ecclesiastical Council, as they shall think fit. 
Very respectfully, 

Your Obedient Servant, 

FRANKLIN DEXTER. 

Boston, Feb. 25th 184J. 

Messrs. Rand and Dexter, 

Gentlemex\ — Before making any proposition to the Proprietors of Hol- 
iis Street Meeting House, I would respectfully inquire of their counsel 
whether in any arrangement that may me made between the parties, the 
Proprietors mean to insist on the right of the Council to decide upon the 
question of dissolution, on the general ground of expediency, aside from 
the truth of the complaints already furnished. 

Respectfully, 

Your Obedient Servant, 

J NO. PIERPONT. 

Boston, Feb. 25, 1841. 

Rev. Jno. Pierpont, 

Sir — We have received your note of this afternoon stating that before 
making any proposition you would inquire of us, " Whether in any ar- 
rangements that may be made between the parties, the Proprietors mean 
to insist on the right of the Council to decide upon the question of dis- 
solution, on the general ground of expediency, aside from the truth of the 
complaints already furnished to you." 

In answer, we are instructed to say for the Committee, that the Proprie- 
tors mean to insist on the right of the Council to decide — so far as the 
result of an Ecclesiastical Council is a decision — upon the question of 
dissolution on the ground of expediency, from the evidence that shall be 
laid before them under the charges and votes passed and recorded April 
6th, and the statement of "Grounds of Complaint" of July 27th. 
We are, respectfully, 

Your Obedient Servants, 

T. B. RAND, 
FRANKLIN DEXTER. 



The Moderator then said, as the parties had not agreed, the 



81 



Council was ready to hear any thing further that the Remonstrant 
might have to offer. 

In his behalf, Mr Fletcher then addressed the Council upon the 
legal questions involved in the controversy between the Proprietors 
of Hollis Street Meeting House and their Pastor, and upon the 
general jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Councils. 

ABSTRACT OP MR. FLETCHER'S REMARKS PREPARED FROM 
MINUTES TAKEN AT THE TIME BY THE SCRIBE. 

Mr Fletcher said, that there were involved in this controversy 
questions of legal right effecting the interests of the Christian min- 
istry. That the great question was, whether or not the Council 
had jurisdiction in the case. It was his deep conviction that it had 
not, and that its members, though they might have the best inten- 
tions and the noblest purposes could not do any good, if they went 
beyond the legal limits prescribed to ecclesiastical tribunals ; that 
no unauthorized act could calm the troubled waters, but only lash 
them into deep and more fearful agitation. Mr Fletcher contend- 
ed that the Council being assembled on the call of the Proprietors 
alone, could acquire right over the Pastor only in two ways, viz., 
by his consent, or by the known or established laws of the land ; 
that it was a mistake, and one often committed by Ecclesiastical 
Councils, to suppose that they had in themselves some inherent 
power, and the right to make laws for each particular occasion, 
and that consequently the volumes of Reports were filled with the 
broken fragments of Ecclesiastical Councils, whose results had been 
reversed by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Mr Fletcher 
contended that an ex-parte Council was not a matter of right, but 
an extreme measure, to be resorted to, only in case of the obstina- 
cy and perverseness of the Pastor ; that to give it authority, the party 
respondent, must have been furnished, when invited to go before a 
Mutual Council, with a specific account of the charges or complaints 
to be brought against him in the matters of complaint, must be pre- 
sented in a distinct and intelligible form — he must have refused this 
invitation, and unreasonably refused it, and the unreasonableness 
of this refusal must be clear and manifest ; an Ecclesiastical Council 
ought not to attempt to exercise jurisdiction in a doubtful case. 
He contended that in the present instance, a Mutual Council had 
not been unreasonably refused ; had not been refused at all, in as- 
much as the Pastor was ready to go before a Mutual Council on 
the " Grounds of Complaint," preferred against him on the 27th 
of July, 1840, which were explicit and contained heavy charges. 
He was not unreasonable in insisting that those charges should be 
the matter before the Council. He contended that the two posi- 
tions assumed by the opposite party, viz., that the object of a gen- 
eral statement of " Grounds of Complaint," was simply to enable 
the Pastor to determine whether he would submit to a Council at 
all, and not to present a specification of charges, and that the issue 
11 



82 



before the Council should be, not the truth of the charges, but the 
general question of the expediency of a dissolution of the connex- 
ion in view of all that should be presented under the charges, were 
both wrong and could not be sustained ; that they were bound to 
present the party accused, definitely and clearly with their accu- 
sations that he might prepare himself for trial. He made some re- 
marks on the cases referred to, to show that the decisions of the 
Supreme Court were not adverse to this, and contended that there 
was an express provision to this effect in Article xii. of the Bill 
of Rights ; that, though this provision as there stated related to 
trials before civil tribunals, it was but the acknowledgement or 
enactment of a principle of natural right, and was equally applicable 
to an ecclesiastical tribunal, and that the circumstance that such a 
tribunal could adjourn from time to time, and thus allow opportu- 
nity for the party respondent to prepare his defence, did not alter 
and ought not to affect the case. He contended that the agree- 
ment, that a distinct specification of charges was not necessary as 
before a civil tribunal, because an Ecclesiastical Council was to try 
a man's general habits of mind, temper and character, was not 
sound, inasmuch as it was preposterous to attempt to prove and de- 
termine a man's habits, his qualities of temper and character, but 
from his acts, from the consideration of specific facts in his con- 
duct, and that therefore a Pastor's refusal to go before a Council 
on vague and uncertain charges, did not bring him under the prin- 
ciple of refusal contemplated by the law ; did not make him an un- 
reasonable, an obstinate and perverse man. He said that definite 
charges had once been presented, the Pastor had agreed to go be- 
fore a Council to try those charges. When they came to the 
point of issuing the Letters Missive, the parties differed as to what 
should be the issue presented to the Council ; the Pastor said he 
was ready to go before a Council on the truth of the charges ; the 
Proprietors contended that the question before the Council should 
be on the expediency of dissolving the connexion in view of all 
that should be presented under the charges ; the Pastor refused to 
permit this to be the question, and he contended that this refusal 
was not such as would warrant the Council to proceed ex-parte. 
The Pastor was willing to go before a Mutual Council to try all 
charges that might be brought against him, and abide the result, if 
the charges were proved to be true, and this was all that could be 
required of him. He admitted that there might have been cases 
in which the issue before the Council was the general question of 
the expediency of a dissolution of the connexion all things con- 
sidered, but he contended, that this was not the invariable or com- 
mon usage of the Congregational Churches of New England, and 
had never been ; that there were cases in which the Council must 
be limited in the issue before it, and that insisting in this case that 
the Council should be limited in this respect, the Pastor had insisted 
only upon his rights. He contended that a Pastor was never re- 



83 



quired to submit the general question of expediency to the deci- 
sion of a Council, that this was a matter in his own hands, left to 
his own discretion, and that his refusal to submit this question, was 
not that kind of unreasonableness that subjected him to the action 
of an ex-parte Council. He contended that the relation of a Pas- 
tor to his people was a contract, a connexion for life, unless other- 
wise limited by special agreement ; that in this contract the Pastor 
had a life interest and right ; that he could not be removed at the 
mere will of his people ; that his people could not do indirectly 
what they could not do directly ; that as they could not on account 
of their discontent vote him out of the pulpit, so they could not pre- 
sent this discontent to a Council, as a ground of dissolution, unless 
they showed it to be founded on specific charges and proved their 
charges to be true. He contended that there were but two ways 
in which this contract could be dissolved, 1st, if the minister is 
chargeable with open and gross immoralities, such as unfit him for 
his office, he can be dismissed at once by a vote of the parish, the 
offences with which he is chargeable being stated in the preamble 
to the vote. He can then sue for his salary ; these offences can 
be pleaded in defence by the parish, and if proved before a jury to 
have been committed, the vote of the parish is sustained, and the 
connexion dissolved by the Court ; if the minister is chargeable only 
with minor offences, such as imprudence, neglect of parochial 
duty, &c, then these offences may be charged against him before 
an Ecclesiastical Council, and if upon proof of their truth, the 
Council advise a dissolution of the connexion, the Supreme Court 
will then dissolve the contract ; and Mr Fletcher contended that 
there was no other way in which the contract could be dissolved ; 
that the general question of expediency, the Pastor was never re- 
quired to submit to the decision of a Council, unless he chose ; 
that therefore Rev. Mr Pierpont had not acted unreasonably in re- 
fusing to submit that question, and that therefore the Council were 
not authorized to proceed ex-parte. 

When he had concluded, Mr Rand, in behalf of the Proprietors, 
asked for an adjournment to Monday, as he was suffering under a 
severe cold, which made it impossible for him to address the Coun- 
cil in reply to Mr Fletcher, without great difficulty and exposure. 

On motion of Rev. Mr Ripley, 

Voted, That the Council do now adjourn, to meet in this place on Mon- 
day next, at nine o'clock, A. M. 

Adjourned. 

Monday, March 1. 

The Council met this morning at nine oclock. Prayer was of- 
fered by Rev. Mr Ripley. 

After the journal was read Mr Fletcher, counsel for the Re- 
monstrant, replied to some questions proposed by the Scribe, and 



84 



read a manuscript report of the decision of the Supreme Court, in 
the case of Sheldon v. Easton. Mr Rand then addressed the 
Council in an argument, in reply to the Remonstrance, and at half- 
past one o'clock gave way to a motion for adjournment, and on 
motion of Mr Eliot, 

Voted, That the Council do now adjourn, to meet in this place tomorrow 
morning, at 9 o'clock. 

Adjourned. 

Tuesday, March 2. 
The Council met at nine o'clock. Prayer was offered by the 
Moderator. 

The journal of the previous session was read. Mr Rand re- 
sumed his argument, and continued to address the Council till one 
o'clock, when, on motion of Mr D. R. Chapman, and to allow 
members of the Council time to meet other engagements, it was 

Voted, That the Council do now adjourn, to meet in this place at half- 
past nine o'clock, A. M. on Thursday next. 

Adjourned. 

Thursday, March 4. 

The Council met at half-past nine o'clock. Prayer was offered 
by Rev. Mr Waterston. 

After the journal was read, Mr Rand resumed his argument, 
and addressed the Council till half-past eleven, when he concluded. 
Some explanations were then made by Rev. Mr Pierpont, and 
Messrs. Fletcher and Dexter. Some remarks were also made 
by Mr Eliot. 

ABSTRACT OF MR. RAND'S ARGUMENT, PREPARED FROM MINUTES 
TAKEN AT THE TIME BY THE SCRIBE. 

Mr Rand said this was a question of jurisdiction, and that all 
questions of jurisdiction were to be tried by considerations founded 
on the objects and purposes of the tribunal whose jurisdiction was 
disputed. He contended that the objects and purposes of an Eccle- 
siastical Council were distinct from those of a court of Law, that the 
object of the latter was to ascertain guilt or innocence, that of the 
former to settle differences, that the proceedings of the one were 
regulated by technical forms, those of the other by the exercise of 
a sound discretion in the case in hand. He contended that the 
office and jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Councils had not been 
abused, that but two instances could be found in the Reports in 
which their decisions had been reversed or set aside by the Su- 
preme Court, and this was more than could be said in favor of 
the legal tribunals from whose decisions an appeal might be made 
to the Supreme Court. Mr Rand here read from a decision of 
Chief Justice Parsons, Mass. Reports, vol. iii., Thompson v. Reho- 
both, as to what were proper questions to be brought before an. 



85 



Ecclesiastical Council, and then contended that these were some of 
the very questions involved in this controversy, that therefore 
there existed just and reasonable ground for calling a Council, and 
that consequently it would seem prima facia, that the refusal to 
unite in calling it, was unreasonable on the part of the Pastor. He 
then considered the three grounds of refusal presented in the Re- 
monstrance of the Pastor, and contended that the first statement in 
that Remonstrance, if true in all its parts, was no sufficient reason 
for the parties refused ; that it was the duty of a Christian minister 
to be ready, not simply at one time, but all times to submit diffi- 
culties between him and his parish to the consideration of an Ec- 
clesiastical Council ; that neither in a legal or moral point of view, 
was he exempt from his duty or obligation, because he had offered to 
do it once and been refused ; that if he was ready to do it on the 7th 
of October, 1839, he ought to be ready now ; that causes of com- 
plaint subsisted now, whether they subsisted or not in 1839, and he 
was under obligation to have them adjudicated upon ; that his rea- 
soning, if sound, operated as a perpetual bar to the calling of a 
Council at any time, and to the settlement of any difficulties that 
subsisted or might arise between them, so long as he was their 
Pastor, and that therefore this ground of refusal was untenable and 
could not be sustained upon any principles of reason, religion and 
common law. He contended, furthermore, that on the supposition 
that the Pastor's proposition was rejected as stated in the Remon- 
strance, it was to be considered what that proposition was, wheth- 
er it was such an one as an Ecclesiastical Council would adjudicate 
upon. He then read from Rev. Mr Pierpont's letter of the 7th of 
October, 1839, and contended that the proposition of the letter, 
essentially different from the proposition of Mr Boyd's resolution, 
submitted only this issue, whether " his zeal in the temperance 
cause was the head and front of his offending ;" that this was an 
idle and frivolous question, such as no Council would have convened 
to determine ; that the Pastor would not have been bound to go 
before a Council on this question ; that neither were the parish, and 
that therefore their rejection of this offer, on the supposition that 
they rejected it, was no reasonable excuse for the Pastor's refusal, 
to unite in calling a Mutual Council, to which should be submitted 
a broader and more just issue. Mr Rand further contended, that 
the first statement in the Remonstrance was not true in point of 
fact, that the offer there alluded to and described, was not made by 
the Pastor in his letter, but by Mr Boyd, in resolutions presented 
in his own name, without any intimation that he acted under Rev. 
Mr Pierpont's sanction and authority, at the parish meeting on the 
7th of October, 1839. That it was, in fact, an offer, not from the 
Pastor to the parish, but from the parish to the Pastor, inviting him 
to unite in calling a Mutual Council on certain conditions, distinct 
and different from those proposed in the letter from the Pastor, 
read at the same meeting ; that the Pastor had indeed subsequently 



86 



avowed that Mr Boyd had acted as his agent and under his author- 
ity, but that this avowal was not made till after the Committee, to 
whom the resolutions were referred, had reported, and that this 
Report and all further proceedings on the resolutions were 
quashed at a parish meeting in which the friends of the Pastor were 
a majority. He contended, that it could not be said therefore that 
the offer was made by the Pastor ; that it could not be said it was 
rejected by the opponents, that therefore the reason for the refusal, 
here stated in the Remonstrance was not founded in fact, and if found- 
ed in fact, was not sufficient. Upon the second reason for the re- 
fusal of the Pastor, presented in the Remonstrance, viz., the ex- 
treme generality and vagueness of the " Grounds and Reasons of 
Complaint," Mr Rand contended, that in order to judge if there 
was any weight in this objection, it must first be determined what 
was the object of furnishing the Pastor with any statement of reas- 
ons. He thought attention had been withdrawn by the opposite 
counsel from this point to another and quite a different question, 
viz., not whether the " Grounds of Complaint," were sufficiently 
specific to justify the call, but whether they were such as they 
should be, were the Pastor on trial on the merits of the case. He 
contended that the only object and purpose for which a statement 
of the Grounds of Complaint was required to be made to the Pas- 
tor, was solely to enable him to judge if they were serious and 
weighty ; that if it could be made to appear that they were serious 
and weighty, enough was shown to prove that the refusal on the 
part of the Pastor was unreasonable ; that the only authority 
(Pick. Reports, vol. vii. p. 164,) which said anything in relation to 
furnishing the Pastor with a statement of the grounds of com- 
plaints, gave this as the reason why he should be so furnished ; that 
in the case of Sheldon v. Easton, a manuscript report of which 
had been cited by the opposite counsel, the result of the Council 
was set aside by the decision of the Supreme Court ; not because 
the grounds of complaint were not sufficiently specific, but because 
the Council had received testimony in relation to, and founded 
their result upon, charges or Grounds of Complaint which had not 
been shown to the Pastor when he was invited to unite in calling a 
Mutual Council, and had not stated in their result the grounds on 
which the result was founded. He contended, therefore, that this 
case did not conflict with what had been already cited upon this 
point, and that there was no authority for such specific allegations 
as it was said ought to be made ; that there was no instance on re- 
cord in which the proceedings of an Ecclesiastical Council had 
been over-ruled, because the grounds of complaint were not suffi- 
ciently specific ; that it had never been customary to furnish the 
Pastor with minute specifications ; that it had never been customary, 
and was not required even in a court of law to furnish minute spe- 
cifications where the charge related to habitual conduct ; as for in- 
stance, a man could be indicted as a common drunkard without 
its being specified in the indictment when and where he got drunk ; 



87 



he could be indicted as a common vagabond, without it being spe- 
cified when and where he begged, and that the reason of this was, 
that the charge included in its nature a continuation of acts form- 
ing the daily habit. He contended, therefore, that the position 
with regard to minute specifications, assumed by opposite counsel, 
could not be maintained in a court of law, much less before an Ec- 
clesiastical Council ; that as a ground of remonstrance to the action 
of the Council, it entirely failed, in as much as the Pastor was ex- 
pressly assured he might present the specific charges of the 27th 
of July, if he wished, and in as much as it appeared from the re- 
solutions offered by Mr Boyd, and since acknowledged to have 
been offered under the authority of the pastor, he was formerly 
willing to have a Mutual Council on far more general grounds than 
those on which he has now refused, because they were too general. 

Mr Rand then considered the third ground of refusal presented 
in the remonstrance, viz : that the parties were already under 
agreement, &c. He said, that if this were true it did not justify 
the Pastor in refusing to join in the last invitation made to him to 
have a Mutual Council ; that the Proprietors had never had a hear- 
ing on them, or on any grounds of complaint; that if the last 
grounds of complaint were weighty and serious, they had a right 
to a Council to decide upon them ; that a Council had been called 
on the former grounds of complaint and failed, and that where a 
Council failed, and did not come to a legal and final result, every 
thing must begin " de novo.'''' He contended that the parish were 
not bound to bring all their former charges, and that whatever 
might be their reasons for waiving some of them, the Pastor could 
not complain. He said that in civil courts, complaints were often 
made and waived, neglected, not brought up, and that this did not 
prevent a new action, provided no trial and decision had been had : 
the parish therefore, had a right to change, alter, or add to their 
charges, and this did not justify the Pastor in his refusal, and the 
court had so decided in the case of Stearns v. Bedford, and in this 
instance the Pastor had his election to bring forward the former 
charges, if he was disposed. But it is said that the former charges 
are on the records of the parish, and will go down to posterity ; to 
this it may be replied that the result of the Council be on the re- 
cords ; also that no Council would come to a result without express- 
ing an opinion whether the moral character of the Pastor was in- 
volved or not ; that Councils had always done this, and had some- 
times recommended the Pastor as suited to some other society. He 
contended, therefore, that if the present grounds of complaint were 
weighty and serious, as they unquestionably were, it was not suffi- 
cient reason for refusal that there were or had been presented 
other grounds of complaint against him. But Mr Rand contended 
further, that the third statement in the remonstrance was not true 
in point of fact. 

He then went into a review of the facts in the case, similar to 



4 

88 

the one presented by Mr Dexter, to show that before the agree- 
ment was finally concluded, it was broken by the precipitate action 
of the pastor in causing the church to issue Letters Missive, not 
seen and not approved by the Proprietors. He contended that the 
tenor of their Letters Missive did not correspond to the previous 
character of the agreement between the parties, so far as made, in 
two respects : 1st, because they excluded from the consideration of 
the Council the Grounds of Complaint on the records of 6th of 
April ; and 2d, because they determined the manner in which the 
Council should come to their result. He contended that this at- 
tempt on the part of the Pastor to limit the powers of the Council, 
and determine the manner in which they should come to a result, 
was contrary to law and usage. He contended that the question of 
expediency, what it was best to advise under the circumstances of 
the case, was always the ultimate question before an Ecclesiastical 
Council ; that the position assumed by Mr Fletcher, that the pastor 
was never required to submit that question to a Council, could not 
be sustained ; that if such had been the usage and the law, an Ec- 
clesiastical Council would never have been heard of in New Eng- 
land ; that in most of the instances in which the results of Coun- 
cil had been sustained by the Supreme Court, the Council had 
come to its result on grounds of expediency. He contended fur- 
ther that the Proprietors did not insist that the Council should come 
to its result on grounds of expediency ; that word had never been 
used by them, it had been introduced by the opposite party ; they 
only insisted that the powers of the Council should not be settled 
in advance by one of the parties ; that no unusual restrictions or 
limitations should be put upon it ; they only wished to have a Coun- 
cil called according to law and usage, to consider certain Grounds 
of Complaint, and under those Grounds of Complaint and in view of 
all that should be proved or unfolded under them, to come to a re- 
sult, such a result as in their wisdom, and in the exercise of a sound 
discretion, they might deem best. And this he contended, was 
the character, and these the powers, which the law, and the usage 
of the Congregational Churches of New England had always re- 
cognized as belonging to Ecclesiastical Councils. In conclusion, 
he said, that all the grounds presented in the remonstrance, did not 
prove the Pastor's refusal to have been reasonable, and that there- 
fore his remonstrance ought to have no effect in preventing the pro- 
ceedings of the Council ; that the name ex-parte related only to 
the manner of calling the Council, and not to the justness of its 
proceedings ; that the Pastor need suffer and would suffer no pre- 
judice ; that he could have anything inquired into that he wished, 
and have perfect justice done him ; that the controversy had been 
called a scandal, and that something ought to be done to remove it ; 
that if the Council declined to proceed, and the courts of law de- 
clined to interfere, till the action of a Council had been had, it was 
difficult to determine all the evil that would follow, or how long the 



89 



scandal would continue, that if the complaints were unfounded, the 
Pastor had nothing to fear ; That if they should appear to be well 
founded, the Council had nothing to apprehend ; the court would 
sustain its result ; its action would not lash the troubled waters into 
a furious agitation, but calm them to peace and quietness. 

On motion of Mr Ripley, it was 

Voted, That having heard the counsel of the Proprietors of Hollis 
Street Meeting House in favor of the jurisdiction of this body as an ex- 
parte Council in the matters of controversy between them and the Pastor 
of Hollis Street Society, — and having also heard the Pastor of Hollis 
Street Society, and his counsel in support of his Remonstrance against 
such jurisdiction, this Council will hold a private session to deliberate 
and decide upon the question thus presented. 

In consequence of the preceding vote, the Moderator requested 
the spectators to retire ; which request was immediately complied 
with, and the Council was left to its deliberations and decisions. 

Mr S. A. Eliot then presented the following resolutions. 

Resolved, That this Council has been properly called and organized as 
an ex-parte Council, and is duly authorized to proceed to the examination 
of the evidence in support of the charges brought by a Committee of the 
Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House against their Pastor, Rev. 
John Pierpont. 

Resolved, That this Council will now proceed to hear the evidence 
which may be offered by the Committee in support of said charges. 

On motion of D. R. Chapman, 

Voted, That these resolutions be for the present laid upon the table. 

The Council then went into some discussion as to the manner in 
which its deliberations should be conducted, and on motion of Rev. 
Mr Gannett, it was 

Voted, That at the next meeting of this Council the Moderator shall 
proceed to ask, in order, each member of the Council to express his opin- 
ion upon the question, " whether this Council has jurisdiction in the case 
before it." 

Voted, That this inquiry be made of the members, in the order of the 
churches they represent as designated in the Letter Missive. 

On motion of Mr D. R. Chapman, 

Voted, That the Council do now adjourn, to meet in this place on Mon- 
day Morning next, at 10 o'clock. 

Adjourned. 

Monday, March 8. 
The Council met this morning at ten o'clock. Prayer was of- 
fered by Rev. Dr Frothingham. 

In conformity with votes passed at the last session, the Modera- 
tor proceeded to ask each member of the Council, in the order of 
the churches they represent, to express his opinion upon the ques- 
tion, " whether this Council has jurisdiction in the case before it." 
12 



90 



The several members expressed their opinions, giving generally 
the grounds on which that opinion rested. It being then nearly two 
o'clock, it was, on motion of the Scribe, 

Voted, That the Council do now adjourn, to meet in this place tomor- 
row morning, at 10 o'clock. 

Tuesday, March 9. 

The Council was called to order this morning at ten o'clock, by 
the Moderator. Prayer was offered by Rev. Dr Greenwood, 
The Moderator said the members of the Council had expressed 
their opinions agreeably to the vote of the 4th inst., and that there 
was now no question before the Council. 

Mr Eliot then called up his resolutions offered at the meeting 
of the 4th inst. and subsequently laid upon the table. The resolu- 
tions were accordingly taken up, and the question was on the pas- 
sage of the first resolution, which was as follows, viz : 

Resolved, That this Council has been properly called and organized as 
an ex-parte Council, and is duly authorized to proceed to the examination 
of the evidence in support of the charges brought by a Committee of the 
Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House against their Pastor, Rev. 
John Pierpont. 

On motion of Mf D. R. Chapman, 

Ordered, That the question, when taken, be taken by yeas and nays. 

The Scribe proposed as an amendment or substitute, a pream- 
ble, with resolutions, which was not entertained by the Council, 
and was withdrawn by the mover. 

After debate, the question was taken on the passage of the reso- 
lution, and decided as follows. Nays — Messrs Frothingham, S. H. 
Babcock, Robbins, Bailey, Young, Worthington, Gray, Wm. G. 
Babcock, Barrett, Pray, Ripley, Austin, Waterston, Sargent, Lin- 
coln — 15. Yeas — Messrs Lothrop, Sullivan, Parkman, Hammatt, 
Gannett, Chapman, Greenwood, Eliot — 8 : and the resolution was 
not passed. 

It was then, on motion of Mr Pray, and after some discussion, 

Voted, That a Committee of five be appointed to prepare and report a 
Result, for the adoption of the Council. 

On nomination by the Moderator, the following gentlemen were 
chosen to constitute this committee, viz : Messrs Frothingham, 
Ripley, Gannett, Sullivan and Pray. 

Mr Gannett offered the following resolution touching the ad- 
vice to be given by this Council to the parties. On motion of Mi- 
Pray this resolution was referred to the committee. 

On motion of Mr D. R. Chapman, 

Voted, That the Council do now adjourn, to meet in this place at half- 
past 3, P. M. tomorrow. 

Adjourned. 



91 



Wednesday, March 10. 

The Council assembled at 3 1-2 o'clock. Rev. Mr Gannett of- 
fered prayer. After the journal was read, the Moderator said that 
the business before the Council was to receive the Report of the 
Committee appointed to prepare and report a result for the adop- 
tion of the Council, and to which Committee had been referred 
also, the Resolution submitted by Rev. Mr Gannett, respecting the 
advice to be given by the Council to the parties. 

It appeared that the Committee had performed but part of the 
duty assigned them, and were ready to report only on the advice 
to be given this Council to the parties. 

Rev. Dr Frothingham, for the Committee, then presented a Re- 
port upon this subject, which after considerable discussion and the 
adoption of an amendment offered by Rev. Mr Young, was ac- 
cepted, and the resolutions it proposed, passed ; which resolutions 
were as follows : — 

1. Resolved, That this Council will not at present declare their opinion 
on the question of their jurisdiction in the case before them, in a "Re- 
sult of Council ;" but rather feel themselves constrained to indicate the 
course which in their judgment it becomes equally the Pastor of the Hol- 
lis Street Church and the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House to 
adopt : — Which, therefore, they do urge upon both by every consideration 
that can be drawn from a sense of personal character ; from a desire to 
render and secure mutual justice ; from a due regard to the churches 
which have been twice invited to assemble in Council to adjudicate upon 
this most unhappy controversy, and from a regard to the interests of the 
Church of Christ, and the religion of which they profess themselves com- 
mon disciples : — and which course is as follows : 

That both parties fall back upon the agreement of the 27th of July, 
1840, and confining themselves to the terms of that document, without at- 
tempt by either party to affix its own interpretation to the words with 
which that paper is introduced, present to a Mutual Council, to whom 
alone the interpretation of those words shall be left, the " Grounds of 
Complaint preferred" in that paper as reasons for dissolving the connex- 
ion of the Rev. John Pierpont with his Parish. 

And whether the Council now in session, who do hereby express their 
willingness to act in the case, or some other Council, be selected by the 
two parties as the ecclesiastical body before which said " Grounds of 
Complaint" shall be presented, it is the opinion of this Council, that the 
examination of said Grounds as preferred in said paper, would result in 
producing, and is the only method that promises to produce, an adjudica- 
tion between the parties, by which the rights of both may be maintained, 
justice be done, and peace be restored. 

2d Resolved. That the preceding Resolution be communicated by the 
the Scribe of this Council to the Pastor of Hollis Street Church, and to 
the Committee of the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, and 
that this Council do now adjourn, to meet in this place on Friday next, at 
half-past three o'clock, P. M., to receive such communications as said 
parties may see fit to make. 

The Council then adjourned as above. 



92 



Friday, March 12. 

The Council met at half-past 3 o'clock, P. M., according to ad- 
journment. Prayer was offered by Rev. Mr Ripley. 

The Scribe then announced that he had received communica- 
tions from the Committee of the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meet- 
ing House, and from the Pastor of Hollis Street Society, in reply to 
the votes of Council of the 16th inst. which were ordered to be 
read. 

Boston, March 12th, 1841. 

Rev. Samuel K. Lothrop, 

Scribe of the Ecclesiastical Council 

now sitting in the U. S. District Court Room. 
Dear Sir, — Your esteemed favor of the 10th inst, was received, en- 
closing certain resolutions of the Council ; I herewith send you the an- 
swer of the Committee, with the request that you will please lay the same 
before that body. 

With great respect, 

I am, Sir, 

Your obedient servant, 

JOSHUA CRANE, 
For the Committee of Hollis Street Society. 

To the Ecclesiastical Council, 

now sitting in the U. S. District Court Room. 

Gentlemen, — The Committee of the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meet- 
ing- House have gladly and gratefully received your resolutions of the 
10th inst., and in answer say : 

The Parish will agree with Mr Pierpont to " fall back upon the agree- 
ment of 27th July, 1840, and confining themselves to the terms of that 
document without attempt by either party to affix its own interpretation 
to the words with which that paper is introduced, present to " " the Coun- 
cil now in Session" as " a Mutual Council to whom alone the interpreta- 
tion of those words shall be left, the ' Grounds of Complaint preferred' in 
that paper as reasons for dissolving the connexion of the Rev. John Pier- 
pont with his Parish." 

The only reason why the Committee do not now accept the proposition 
in the alternative form in which it is made by the Council, viz : of so pre- 
senting those " Grounds of Complaint" either to the " Council now in Ses- 
sion," or to " some other Council to be selected by the two parties" is, that 
it would give Mr Pierpont the power of electing to have this present Coun- 
cil dissolved for the ostensible purpose of selecting some other one — in 
the choice of whom, they feel convinced that Mr Pierpont would never 
unite with the Parish on the terms proposed — the same measure having 
been constantly rejected by him. Such an acceptance on our part would 
therefore leave us just where we should be if this Council should simply 
decline jurisdiction, and that too, apparently, by our own assent — a conse- 
quence not likely to escape the observation of Mr Pierpont. Besides 
which an acceptance in the alternative by both parties Avouid not consti- 
tute any agreement. We trust the Council will see in this form of accep- 
tance, therefore, only a reasonable desire to protect the Parish from a re- 
newal of endless negociations with Mr Pierpont w ithout any result. To ac- 
cept their proposition in the above form is doing all we can to enable the 
Council to proceed — to accept it in the alternative would be in effect 



93 



agreeing that Mr Pierpont might elect whether they should proceed at all 
without binding him to any thing hereafter. 

To prevent misconstruction on any future occasion, we add, that by 
accepting this proposition we do not waive any right to have this Coun- 
cil proceed ex-parte, if Mr Pierpont should not accept and abide by it 
upon the same terms as those upon which we have accepted it 
With the highest respect, we are, 

Your obedient, humble Servants, 

JOSHUA CRANE, 1 

JOHN D. WILLIAMS, I 

DANIEL WELD, | Committee of 

WM. W. CLAPP, )■ Hollis Street 

TIMO. TILESTON, Society. 

RUEL BAKER, 

WARREN WHITE, J 

Boston, March 12th, 1841. 

To the ex-parte Ecclesiastical Council, now sitting in the U. S. District 

Court Room, in this city. 
Christian Brethren — The first of the Resolutions, reported by 
your Committee, and by your instructions communicated to me last even- 
ing, by your Scribe, speaks of " the agreement of the 27th of July, 1840." 
I would respectfully suggest, that there is, strictly, no agreement, of that 
date, between the parties to the controversy before yon ; — the only papers, 
bearing that date, being, the " Grounds of Complaint" to which your Reso- 
lution refers, and the Letter of the Committee, enclosing those " Grounds," 
and inquiring whether I will unite in a Mutual Council to deliberate and 
decide upon them. 

If I understand the course indicated by your Resolution, it is this : — 
that both parties fall back upon their agreement in relation to the " Grounds 
of Complaint" of the 27th of July, 1840, and, — without an attempt by 
either party to affix its own interpretation to the words with which that 
paper is introduced, but leaving the construction of those words to the 
proper tribunal, — submit the "Grounds of Complaint," as preferred in that 
paper, to a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council as reasons for dissolving my 
connexion with my parish. 

If this is the correct understanding of the course indicated in the Reso- 
lution of your body, I altogether approve, and hereby express to you my 
willingness to follow it. 

The next question presented in the same Resolution, namely, whether 
the Council now in session, or some other Council, be selected by the two 
parties as the Ecclesiastical body to which said "Grounds of Complaint" 
shall be thus presented, — as it has been suggested in your communication 
to me, deserves, and shall receive, my most respectful consideration : — 
but, with your permission, I will reserve that question till the other party 
shall have expressed their readiness, as I do hereby express mine, to fol- 
low the course indicated as above, in relation to the " Grounds of Com- 
plaint" of the 27th of July, 1840. 

I am, very respectfully, 

Your friend and brother, 

JOHN PIERPONT 

Boston, 11th March, 1841. 



94 



After the reading of these documents, the following resolution 
was offered by Rev. Mr Gannett. 

Resolved, That inasmuch as the Committee of the Proprietors of Hol- 
lis Street Meeting House, have signified their willingness to " agree with 
Mr Pierpont to fall back upon the agreement of the 27th of July, 1840, 
and confining themselves to the terms of that document, without attempt 
by either party to affix its own interpretation to the words with which 
that paper is introduced, present to the Council now in session, as a mu- 
tual Council, to whom alone the interpretation of those words shall be 
left, the ' Grounds of Complaint' preferred in that paper as reasons for 
dissolving the connexion of Rev. John Pierpont with his parish. And 
inasmuch as the Pastor of the Hollis Street Church has expressed his 
readiness to follow the course indicated in the resolutions of this Council 
of the 10th inst. in relation to the ' Grounds of Complaint' of the 27th of 
July, 1840, since 'the only proper tribunal to whom alone the interpre- 
tation of the words with which the paper of the 27th of July, 1840, is in- 
troduced, 'shall alone be left,' must be in the first instance, the Ecclesias- 
tical Council agreed upon by the parties to this controversy, subject after- 
wards to the revision of the Supreme Judicial Court, this Council do now 
adjourn to Monday next, the 15th inst, at half-past 3 o'clock, P. M., that 
the present resolution may be communicated to the respective parties, and 
a reply be received from Rev. John Pierpont upon the point to which the 
Committee of the Proprietors have returned, but he has reserved an an- 
swer, viz., whether this present Council shall be the body, before whom, 
as a mutual Council, the ' Grounds of Complaint' of July 27th, 1840, shall 
be preferred." 

On motion of Mr D. R. Chapman, it was ordered that when the 
question be taken on this Resolution, it be taken by yeas and nays. 
After much discussion and the rejection of several amendments, 
the question was taken and the resolution adopted. Ayes, — 
Messrs Young, Gannett, Gray, Barrett, Ripley, Sargent, S. H. Bab- 
cock, Bailey, Sullivan, Worthington, Wm. G. Babcock, Pray, 
Austin, Lincoln, 14. Nays, — Messrs Frothingham, Robbins, Ham- 
mett, Chapman, Eliot, Parkman, Lothrop, 7. 

It was then on motion of Rev. Mr Barrett, 

Voted, That the blank in the preceeding resolution be filled with Mon- 
day next, 15th inst, at half-past three o'clock, P. M. 

The following resolution was then offered by Rev. Mr Gannett, 
and adopted. 

Resolved, That the Scribe be instructed to communicate the preceed- 
ing Resolution to the Committee of the Proprietors of Hollis Street 
Meeting House, and to the Pastor of Hollis Street Church. 

The Council then adjourned to Monday, 15th inst., at half-past 
three o'clock, P. M. 

Monday, March 15. 

The Council met at half-past three o'clock. Prayer was offer- 
ed by Rev. Mr Gray. 

The Scribe read the following communication from Rev. John 
Pierpont, in reply to the resolution of this Council of the 12th, ask- 



95 



ing for more time to consult with his legal counsel, and have his 
mind relieved of some legal objections which he found stood in the 
way of his adopting this Council as a Mutual Council. 

To the ex-parte Ecclesiastical Council, now sitting in the U. S. District 
Court Room, in Boston. 

Christian Brethren : — The communication of your Scribe, inform- 
ing me of the doings of your body, last Friday, I received at half-past one 
o'clock, P. M., on Saturday. Being obliged to leave town at three 
o'clock, P. M , for New Bedford, to meet a previous engagement for an ex- 
change on Sunday, I could not return till between 10 and 11 o'clock, this 
forenoon, and it has been impossible for me to give your communication 
the attention it deserves, — confer with my legal counsel, and prepare a 
reply in season to lay it before you at your session this afternoon. 

The course suggested, as to converting an ex-parte into a Mutual Ec- 
clesiastical Council, for the adjudicating of the present case, appears to 
me to labor under a legal objection, — the only one in the way — from 
which I must ask of you the indulgence of a single day, that, if possible, 
I may see it relieved, and have time to prepare a reply to your last com- 
munication in season for your session tomorrow, at this time. I respect- 
fully ask the Council to grant me this indulgence for this purpose ; which, 
if granted, will be gratefully acknowledged by 

Your friend and fellow Servant, 

JNO. PIERPONT, 

Half-past three, P. M., Monday, 15th March, 1841. 

On motion of Mr D. R. Chapman, it was 

Voted, That the Council adjourn, to tomorrow, at quarter past five, P. M. 

Adjourned. 

Tuesday, March 16. 

The Council met at quarter past five. Prayer was offered by 
Rev. Mr Sargent. 

After the reading of the Journal, the Scribe stated he had re- 
ceived a communication from Rev. Mr Pierpont, which was ordered 
to be read. 

To the ex-parte Ecclesiastical Council now sitting in the U. S. District 
Court Room, in Boston. 
Christian Brethren: — To the proposal suggested in the Resolu- 
tion of your body, under date of the 10th instant, that this Council should 
be recognized by the parties to the present controversy between the Pro- 
prietors of the Hollis Street Meeting House and myself, as the Mutual 
Ecclesiastical Council, to which the "Grounds of Complaint" preferred 
by those Proprietors against me as reasons for the dissolution of my con- 
nexion with Hollis Street Society, shall be submitted for adjudication as 
proposed in the above named Resolution, there has seemed to me to be 
this legal objection,— the one to which I alluded in my note of yesterday, 
as the only one that lies in the way of my prompt acceptance of the prof- 
fered service of this Council ;— namely, that it seems to involve and im- 
ply the exercise, on the part of this Council, and of the parties to this 
controversy, of a power that does not belong to them ; the power, I mean, 



96 



of converting by their own act, an ex-parie Council, called for one pur- 
pose, into a Mutual Council for another and a very different purpose. 

The reasoning, in the case, may be briefly stated thus : — an Ecclesias- 
tical Council is a Council of Churches, sitting and acting by their respec- 
tive representatives, their pastors and lay delegates. Now, most obvious- 
ly, the two parties in a controversy are not competent, by their own act, to 
invite particular individuals, as representatives of churches, and to con- 
stitute them such a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council as is recognized by the 
courts of la w in this Commonwealth, without the co-operation of the con- 
stituent power of their respective churciies. Neither are the pastors and 
lay members of churches, by their own act, without the constituent action 
of their respective churches, competent to constitute themselves such an 
Ecclesiastical Council as is recognized by our courts of law. Nor yet, 
without the creative energy of the churches, acting to that end, are both 
the pastors and lay members of churches, working together with the two 
parties in a controversy, competent to create an Ecclesiastical Council 
whose action will be recognized in our courts of law, as that of a known 
Ecclesiastical tribunal. 

If, then, neither the parties alone, nor the pastors and lay members 
alone, nor yet all of them consenting and co-operating, can, without the 
action of the churches to that end, create such an Ecclesiastical Council 
as our courts of law will recognize, it seems to me that they must be 
equally incompetent to wn-create, and then to re-create such a Council. — 
And if these several parties, aside from any church action, to that end, 
cannot, take members which the churches have not sent out upon any par- 
ticular mission, and constitute them a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, for 
any purpose whatever, it seems to me a fortiori, that they cannot, without 
the express consent and co-operation of the respective churches, take 
messengers, which the churches have sent out, as a Council, on one ser- 
vice, and convert them into a different kind of Council, and set them 
upon another, and a totally different service. 

Such is the legal objection under which the proposal, now under con- 
sideration, appears to me to labor. 

I am aware that a Reference, or an Arbitration may be constituted by 
consent of parties ; and that it may be clothed with very ample powers ; 
and that its award will be recognized in our courts of law. But the Re- 
solution of this Council, under date of the 10th instant, and the Agree- 
ment upon which both the parties to the present controversy have now 
fallen back, contemplate, alike, not a Reference, or an Arbitration, but a 
"Mutual Ecclesiastical Council:'' and I am not aware that an Ecclesias- 
tical Council can be made up by consent of those parties ; and, if it can- 
not be, it would seem that only the power that is competent to make up, 
is competent to un-make and to make over. 

I am aware, too, of the maxim in law, " consensus partium iollit erro- 
rem;" the consent of the parties obviated an error. Yet this maxim has 
its limits. A minister, or a magistrate may, by the laws of this Common- 
wealth, solemnize marriages. But, should the parties to a marriage con- 
tract present themselves before a member of this Council, who is neither 
a magistrate nor a minister, and request him to unite them in the bonds 
of wedlock, it might not be easy for them to satisfy him of his competen- 
cy to that office, by their assurance that " consensus partium tollit erro- 
rem." And, besides, the maxim can have no application to this case, be- 
cause, here, the consent of one of the parties, the principal, the essential 
party — the several Churches, is wanting. 



97 



Such, Christian brethren, is the reasoning which supports the objection 
to which I alluded in my note of yesterday : — the only objection under 
Avhich the proposal now under consideration has seemed, and still seems 
to me to labor. 

Nevertheless, inasmuch as this objection seems not to be regarded as an 
obstacle in the way, either of the adverse party or of this Council, I for- 
bear to press it : and, since I am, as from the first I have been, very de- 
sirous to have the " Grounds of Complaint" that were preferred against 
me last July, deliberated and decided upon by an Ecclesiastical tribunal ; 
and since I have great confidence in the integrity of the individuals of 
which this Council is composed, I do hereby express my entire readiness 
to go to trial before it tomoirow morning, or at any other time to which it 
may adjourn, as a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, so far as my consent 
can make it such, upon the " Grounds of Complaint" before referred to : and 
I shall cheerfully accord to the Result to which this Council shall come, 
all the authority and force that shall be adjudged to it by the Supreme 
Judicial Court of this Commonwealth. 

With Christian salutations, 

Your friend and fellow-servant. 

JOHN PIERPONT. 

Boston, 16th March, 1841. 

After the reading of this document, some discussion was had on 
the general state of business before the Council, which ended in 
the adoption of the following resolutions. 

Resolved, That since the Proprietors of the Hollis Street Meeting 
House, on the one part, and the Pastor of the Hollis Street Society on the 
other part, have adopted the course indicated to them by the resolutions 
of this Council of the 16th inst, according to which both parties agree, 
that without attempt by either party to affix its own interpretation to the 
words with which that paper is introduced, the " Grounds of Complaint" 
preferred against the Rev. John Pierpont, on the 27th of July, 1840, as 
reasons for dissolving his connexion with his parish," shall be submitted 
to this body, as a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, therefore, it appears to 
this Council that there is no occasion for them to draw up a Result of 
Council on the question of jurisdiction which was submitted to them 
during their earlier sessions. 

Resolved, That when this Council adjourn, it adjourn to Monday the 
12lh day of April next, at 10 o'clock, A. M., to proceed to hear the par- 
ties according to the agreement and under the "Grounds of Com- 
plaint" referred to in the preceeding resolution. 

Resolved, That the Scribe be directed to communicate the above res- 
olutions to the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, and the Pas- 
tor of Hollis Street Church. 

It was then on motion of Mr Eliot, 

V tied, That the Council do now adjourn. 

Adjourned. 

S. K. LOTHROP, 

Scribe of the Council. 

13 



[The foregoing is the official journal of the Council, in its ex parte 
character, with the documents presented and the arguments of 
Counsel. The following journal of the meeting of the 12th of April, 
and the records of the testimony and proceedings of the Council, 
after entering upon the investigation of the case on the 6th of July, 
are reported by B. F. Hallet, Esq. Owing to the absence of the 
Rev. John Pierpont from the city, it has not been possible, as was 
intended, to compare the record of the testimony here given, with 
the notes taken by the Respondent, during the examination. It has 
been thoroughly compared with the notes taken by the Scribe, an^ 
is considered entirely correct.] 



Supreme Court Room, Boston, April 12th, 1841. 

THE Council met this day at 10 o'clock agreeably to adjourn- 
ment. Prayers were offered by the Moderator and the Journal 
of the last meeting read by the Scribe. The churches were then 
called over in order, and it was found that all the churches were 
represented but the Purchase Street Church. The following 
changes had been made in the Delegates. Samuel Dorr in the 
place of Dea. Worthington, from the New South Church, and I. 
W. Clarke in the place of E. H. Babcock, from the Bulfinch 
Street Church. 

The Moderator then stated, that by consent and agreement of 
parties, the Council was now assembled under the character and 
with the authority of a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, to deliberate 
and decide upon charges preferred against the Rev. John Pier- 
pont, on 27th of July 1840, by the Proprietors of the Hollis Street 
Meeting House as reasons) for the dissolution of his pastoral con- 
nexion, and that if the parties were ready to proceed, the Coun- 
cil was now ready to hear them". 

Rev. Mr. Pierpont, (who appeared without Counsel,) wished it 
might be suggested whether it was competent to go on with a 
Council different from that previously assembled. Some of the 
Delegates had been changed, and one church was not repre- 
sented, 

The Moderator. The Churches are all represented, except 
Purchase Street, and that is to be represented by a Delegate who, 
it is expected, will be present. Does the Pastor make that an 
objection? 

Mr. Pierpont wished to ask the Chairman whether it was not 
proper for him to suggest that fact to the Council. 

The Moderator — being of opinion that the Council was the 
same, although there had been a resignation of some of the Dele- 
gates, and others appointed, should not suggest it, unless so 
directed by the Ceuncil, not deeming it necessary. He would, 
however, suggest, that if either party wishes to object to the 
Council as now organized, this is the proper time to offer it. No 
objection being made, the Moderator inquired if the parties were 
ready to proceed? 

Dexter. The Proprietors, on their part, are ready and desi- 
rous to proceed. 

Mr. Pierpont. I am not ready, desirous or willing to depart 
from the agreement on which the parties have agreed to fall back, 
viz. the articles of complaiat of the 27th July. That provides 
that there shall be a representation of twelve Churches, which 
representation is not before us. It is, therefore, not the tribunal 
to which the parties have agreed to submit the matters in con- 
troversy. 



100 



The Moderator suggested sending a messenger to ascertain if 
the delegate from Purchase-Street Church, Mr. Austin, intended 
to be present. 

Mr. Lothrop objected to sending to any of the churches, who 
should not appear by their delegates. 

Mr. Gannett said, that the question was for the Council to de- 
cide, whether the body now assembled, was the same Council 
that had previously assembled in the United States Court room. 

Mr. Lothrop recited the several propositions and agreements, 
upon which the parties assented to this council, as a mutual 
council, and agreed to give to it all the powers that the Supreme 
Court would give to it, as a Mutual Council. There was no 
agreement of the 27th of July, only the Grounds of Complaint of 
that date, and the parties agree to fall back upon the agreement 
relating to those grounds of complaint, and submit the grounds of 
complaint of the 27th July, upon that agreement. Both these 
documents are to be taken together, and construed by the Coun- 
cil, as the basis of their proceedings. 

Mr. Sullivan. The only question is, whether the absence of 
one church is to suspend the action of the Council. As to the 
tvelve churches originally contemplated, the substantial point of 
agreement between the parties, to regard this body as a Mutual 
Council, has no relation to the number of churches. This is 
done away, and this being the same Council, he hoped they would 
proceed. 

The Moderator. Unless otherwise ordered, I shall repeat the 
notice, that the Council is ready to hear such evidence as may 
be offered by the Complainants. 

Dexter. I anticipated another objection from the learned 
Pastor — the absence of his legal counsel, who is prevented by 
other engagements, from appearing in the case. If that objec- 
tion had been made, it was my intention to suggest a postpone- 
ment of the hearing, on that ground. 1 am now ready to proceed 
on the part of the Proprietors. 

Mr. Pierpont. The agreement is to have Delegates from 
twelve churches, to compose the Council. The party here, has 
as much right to insist on that number as a culprit has to insist 
on twelve jurors. If the jury is not full, it must be filled, and by 
a legal msde. It is not for the Council, but for the parties to 
say, whether a case agreed to be referred to twelve churches, 
shall be tried by eleven. I challenge the gentlemen of the Coun- 
cil, to find a case, from this time back to the year Books, where 
a party, entitled to a jury of twelve, was ever tried by a jury of 
eleven, without his consent. I will not consent to depart a par- 
ticle from my letter of the 11th March. 1 have most carefully 
guarded myself against the construction the Council is about to 
give. I have said that I am willing to fall back upon the agree- 
ment in relation to the charges of the 27th of July. When I fall. 



101 



I want to know upon what I am to fall, and that was upon certain 
charges to be tried by the delegates of twelve churches. Is it 
for a body of literary men, or men of common sense, to say, that 
a council of eleven churches, is a council of twelve churches ? 
I do not consent to any such construction. The tribunal we are 
to have, by the agreement, is a tribunal of twelve. There is no 
such tribunal here, and I do expressly resist and shall resist their 
right to act, until the question is decided by the highest Court. 
The time for this hearing, was not fixed, or agreed to by me. 
The other party was consulted in that matter; 1 was not. 

Mr. Lothrop. The Pastor had expressly consented to any day 
that might suit the Council. In his letter agreeing to go before 
the Council, on the terms now settled between the parties, he 
said I am ready to go to trial to-morrow, or any time to which 
the Council may adjourn. 

Mr. Pierpont. So I was then. 

Mr. Dexter. I was asked by the Scribe, when it would be con- 
venient to have Council meet, solely with reference to the pro- 
fessional engagements of counsel, meaning the c®unsel for the 
Pastor, the same as the counsel for the Proprietors. There has 
been no other notification to us. 

Mr. Pierpont. Allow me to ask the gentleman 

Mr. Gannett. And allow me to ask the Rev. Pastor, if this 
course is proper or respectful to the Council? 

Mr. Sullivan. It is going behind the doings of the Council, to 
arraign them in this matter. I consider the Pastor's whole 
course of remark out of order. It is not competent for him here 
to say, this is not the same Council; that is for us to decide, and 
settle the question; he renewed the suggestion of sending for the 
absent delegate. 

Mr. Gannett. The gentleman has poured out the torrent of 
his censure upon the Council, and was about to pour out the tor- 
rent of his sarcasm. We have endeavored to discharge a chris- 
tian duty, between him and his Society, as we understood it, and 
I cannot listen to imputations on the motives and common sense 
of the Council. If he objects to the right of this body to act, and 
will do so in temperate and proper language, I will hear him. 
He says that common sense should prevent us from putting such 
a construction, as we have put, upon the identity of this Council. 
1 confess my inability to put any other construction upon it. If I 
am wrong in this, I am willing to be enlightened, but not to be re- 
flected on, for my lack of common sense. The only question now 
is, whether this is the same Council that adjourned here the 16th of 
March, and I would beg the Pastor, in the spirit of that fraternal 
regard he has always heretofore shown to his brethren, to adopt a 
different tone of remark. 

Mr. Sullivan said there was no question before the Council, 
and he hoped they would proceed. 



102 



Mr. Barrett thought this would be somewhat hasty. He had 
understood that the agreement was to be interpretted by the 
Council, with reference to the charges of the 27th July, but he 
wished first to understand what the objections to proceeding Were, 
and to hear them. The objection was wholly unexpected to him, 
and he was sorry the Pastor had made it. Perhaps he has a 
legal right to make it, but I wish to inquire whether he means to 
be so exact and particular as to object to this Council because 
there have been changes in the delegates ? Would he object be- 
cause the Pastor of Purchase Street Church is no longer a mem- 
ber, having dissolved his connexion with his Society since the 
last meeting? I should be sorry if it were so, but I wish to know 
the extent of his objection. 

Mr. Lothrop, considered it an unkind remark, and unjust to 
the Council for the Pastor to hold them up to reproach as not 
having duly considered his convenience in fixing the time of the 
adjournment, and in that respect he must think that neither ihe 
spirit nor strain of our brother's remarks, is just to us. But I 
should be unwilling to have him stopped or put down in any ob- 
jections he may wish to make to our new proceedings in the 
investigation. It is his right, and I only desire that his words 
shall be such as kindness, courtesy and fraternal relations render 
proper toward the Council, I trust he will be allowed to proceed, 
and that there will be no further occasion to interrupt him for 
questioning the common will, or justice of the Council. 

The Moderator. We are ready to hear the objections of the 
Pastor, but I must suggest to his excellent sense of propriety, 
that the strain of his remarks must be different. 

Mr. Pierpont. I receive the rebuke from the Chairman and 
brethren, I sincerely say, without resentment. If I have erred 
in what I have said, I must humbly and respectfully take it back. 
If I have said nothing but what is true, I trust the Reverend 
Council will not desire me to take it back. I did understand that 
the other party had been consulted in this adjournment, and I 
was not consulted. 

Mr. Lothrop explained the circumstances which led to the 
adoption of the time for the adjournment. The Council had 
yielded them our convenience to that of the parties. The Pastor 
had informed them, in his note, that he was ready to go to trial 
at any time. They had supposed that he intended it. as he said, 
and in all other respects, and in his communication with the legal 
counsel, it was a matter of convenience designed as much for 
one side as the other. 

Mr. Pierpont. Did I not suggest to the Scribe that if the ad- 
journment was put to a distant day, Mr. Ripley, who was about 
to dissolve his relation to his Society would not be on the Coun- 
cil? 

Mr. Lothrop. You did, and I communicated it to the Council. 



103 



Mr. Pierpont. And the Council proceeded to adjourn beyond 
that time without consulting me. Have I stated any thing that is 
not the fact. Was not the counsel of one party consulted, and 
not the other? 

The Moderator. That does not present a fair statement of the 
case. It was a matter of accommodation to all parties, and de- 
signed, as far as possible, to meet the convenience of all. 

Mr. Lothrop. The Pastor requested me to make the suggest- 
ion in regard to Mr. Ripley, and I did so, but it seemed to me 
that it was waived, as a ground of objection, in his more formal 
letter to the Council, expressing a readiness to proceed when it 
should best suit their convenience. 

Mr. Gannett. Since the Pastor has arraigned us before public 
opinion in this matter, in respect to the absence of our brother 
Mr. Ripley, it should be remembered that it was stated, as a rea- 
son for a longer adjournment, that the Pastor of King's Chapel 
could not attend if we had an immediate adjournment, and it was 
well understood, that in all probability, Mr. Ripley would not be 
able to act with us, till the close of the hearing, should we imme- 
diately proceed. These considerations balanced each other, and 
the council felt at liberty to consult their own convenience. 

Mr. Barrett. The adjournment was carefully considered by 
the council, and no one has a right to blame them. If they had 
gone on immediately, it was known they could not have the aid 
of Mr. Ripley, who was then engaged in making arrangements 
to leave. 

The Moderator. If any other objection is to be offered, I will 
cheerfully hear it, but no further reflections upon motives, can be 
permitted. 

Mr. Pierpont. Wherein have I called in question the motives 
of the council? 

The Moderator. It will be better to proceed to the objections 
you have against going into the hearing. 

Mr. Pierpont. I insist that as the Chairman has made the sug- 
gestion, I should learn wherein I have made any such imputa- 
tion. 

The Moderator. It would be painful to remind the Rev. Pastor 
of what he has said. He was understood as calling the motives 
of the Council, and the Rev. Mr. Gannett very properly rebuked 
it at the time. I now understand the Pastor to withdraw any 
suggestion of improper motives. 

Mr. Gannett. I did understand him to impute improper mo- 
tives to the council, and I shall be gratified to learn that I mis- 
understood him. 

Mr. Pierpont. I have not made any imputation of improper 
motives, I only stated the facts. 

Mr. Gannett. I cannot be forced from my position I did so un 
derstand the Pastor. Did I misunderstand him ? 



104 



Mr. Pierpont. I must say then, distinctly, that the gentleman 
carried the construction too far. 

The Moderator. We will then proceed to hear your objection, 
or is it withdrawn? 

Mr. Lothrop. Do I understand Mr. Pierpont to say that the 
adjournment was fixed by the Council to meet the wishes of one 
party, without consulting the other? He now says he has not 
stated any thing but the facts. If he means so to state the facts, 
as to leave the impression of unfairness which he implies, he does 
injustice to the Council. 

Mr. Pierpont. I understand there was an informal communica- 
tion with both parties, as to the adjournment. That is right. — 
One of the parties made no objection to the time proposed, and 
the other party stated there would be an objection. So that the 
adjournment did take place to a time which one party did not 
object to, and the ®ther did. Is that the fact? 

Mr. Lothrop. Yes, but it is not a true presentment of the 
whole fact, to say, or leave it to be implied, that the Council ad- 
journed without due regard to the rights of the Pastor. 

Mr. Pierpont was about to reply, 

The Moderator felt it his duty to interfere. He regretted the 
course taken by the Pastor. Intimations had been thrown out 
that seemed discourteous: the gentleman says it was not intended, 
but it does not seem to be proper to proceed in this form of crim- 
ination, and unless otherwise directed, I shall pronounce it out 
of order. The gentleman will proceed to his objections. 

Mr. Pierpont. I have no other than the suggestion I have 
made of falling back upon the agreement. Twelve churches 
were to be the tribunal. One of the twelve is not here, and this 
is not the Council contemplated in that agreement, nor is it the 
Council of March last. I am ready to go before the tribunal I 
agreed to. Let such an one be assembled, and I have no objec- 
tion so far as that goes. 

I have other reasons which I might present why this Council 
should not proceed, but one sufficient reason is as good as more, 
and I therefore have presented this alone, which seemed to me 
insuperable. 

The Moderator. If there are any other objections, it might be 
well to suggest them now. 

Mr. Pierpont. Does the Council decide to go on upon that 
objection? I submit this as sufficient, and therefore as good as 
twenty. If it is overruled I have others. 

Mr. Gannett. The course of the Pastor, I must say, is unpre- 
cedented. If objections are to be presented by him, why are 
not the whole stated at once, instead of treating us as children, 
by giving us one lesson at a time and telling us to study that, 
first, and then he has another. I suggest through the Chairman 
whether all the objections ought not to be presented before we 
decide on any one of them? 



105 



The Moderator. I should have put a stop to this peculiar, and 
I must say extraordinary course before, had I not been desirous 
to meet every thing in kindness, and willing, therefore, to listen 
to many things it was painful to hear. The Pastor proceeds 
upon the supposition that this is not the same Council as that of 
March last. That is a fact to be ascertained, but it rests with the 
Council. We understand that Purchase Street Church is rep- 
resented in this Council, but the delegate is confined by sickness, 
which is the cause of his absence. The accidental absence of a 
member of the Council cannot dissolve the Council, or change it 
as a body. If, therefore, the Pastor has any other objections to 
offer, it is now competent to make them, and it would be conven- 
ient to have them distinctly and clearly presented, that they may 
be understood. 

Mr. Pierpont. I fall back upon the agreement of March which 
refers to twelve churches, and if all are not represented, the va- 
cancy may be supplied by a future agreement. But I ask the 
Council if that condition, that I shall have twelve churches, is 
fulfilled in this body? This is not an adjournment, it is the open- 
ing of a new Council, upon terms the parties have agreed to, and 
we now learn that one church is not represented. 

Mr. Barrett. I wish to ask the Pastor whether if that is rep- 
resented, or another one instituted, he will be ready to go for- 
ward with the investigation, or raise other objections? 

Mr. Pierpont. It is for the Council to say whether they will 
hear one objection, and decide on that, or hear them all together. 
I suppose they would wish to consider one thing at a time, if 
not, I will conform to the wishes of the Council as far as I can, 
but I thought that to consider one objection at a time, would make 
the work clearer than to take all in a mass. 

The Moderator wished to have the whole objections laid before 
the Council as clearly as possible. 

Mr. Pierpont. Then if it is the wish of the Council I will pro- 
ceed. Another objection to proceeding at this time is, that Mr. 
Fletcher, my friend and counsel, cannot attend. His engage- 
ments are such as to prevent his serving me until so long a time, 
that he was apprehensive it would be said of me that I was un- 
willing to go to trial. I therefore gave up the hope of having his 
aid and he advised me to select a brother of our own profession, 
one who was recently a member of the ex-parte Council. I went 
to him, but his engagements were such as would require the 
hearing to be put off too long. I also applied to a magistrate to 
aid me, but his engagements rendered it impracticable. I then 
went to a Member of the Bar, but for a like reason, I could not 
engage him. I applied to another, and he does not refuse, but 
cannot be present until the Supreme Court now sitting at Wor- 
cester, shall close its term. This is the pains I have taken, and 
I hope the Council will not infer that there is any reluctance or 
14 



106 



neglect on my part, to be ready for the hearing. That is my sec- 
ond objection. 

A third is that one of the charges, the 6th relates to an alleged 
violation of an engagement, in a matter of business. The gen- 
tleman concerned in that transaction is now in Florida, and will 
not be here until next month. He is a material witness, and on 
him must depend that charge. But if continued or not continued, 
I must press my first objection, and insist on the Council being 
full in accordance with the agreement. Now to avoid all impu- 
tation that I am unwilling to go to trial on these charges, and as 
the doings of this Council be the result what it may, will be car- 
ried up to the Supreme Court, and as it is competent for a Par- 
ish to dismiss their Pastor on the grounds of their charges, if 
true, 1 propose to the Proprietors, through you, that if they will 
dismiss me by their vote, on the grounds of these immuralities, I 
will come under bonds to commence a suit for my salary, of which 
not a dollar has been paid by them for a year, to be carried before 
the Supreme Court, which has power to compel the attendance of 
witnesses which this Council has not, and the charges can be 
there tried on the merits, and settled sooner than the case can be 
in this mode, and then this Council may dissolve, and a jury de- 
cide the whole matter. After this I hope no one will say I am 
not ready to meet the issue. 

The Moderator. It now appears that there are other and 
material objections to proceeding, if the Council were full. I 
regret they were not first presented, as it would have saved the 
disagreeable discussion of this morning. 

Mr. Hammatt wished to know if these were all the objections, 
and whether, if these were considered, others were not to be pre- 
sented. 

Mr Pierpont. I ask the Chair if I am alone in making sug- 
gestions unjust to one of the parties ? 

The Moderator. No time is suggested to which we should 
adjourn. 

Mr. Pierpont could not suggest less than six weeks, in which 
he could obtain the aid of his counsel. The first of May was 
proposed, as more convenient for Mr. Dexter. 

Mr. Pierpont. You shall not say I have no disposition to ac- 
commodate. This process began against me the 6th of April. 
In all that time I have not asked for one day's delay. I will 
now agree to meet this Council at the time suggested, if full, but 
it must be full, and then if I can get no counsel, I will alone 
throw myself upon the Council, notwithstanding the offence I 
find I have unwittingly given this body. 

Mr. Gannett. I am glad to hear this, because it shows a dis- 
position to come to a proper hearing of the case ; but I was 
sorry to hear it made in a manner implying a doubt of our jus- 
tice ; but I should be unwilling to oblige the Pastor, under any 



107 



circumstances, to come here alone, and listen to accusations 
against him, supported by two of the ablest counsel in the Com- 
monwealth. He suggested the first of June. 

Some inquiry was made whether the place of adjournment 
ought not to be Hollis Street Meeting House, which was named 
in the original agreement. 

Mr. Pierpont said he adhered to that part of the agreement. 

Mr. Lothrop thought that no discussion could arise upon any 
other preliminary matter, if the place of meeting was fixed at the 
HolJis Street Meeting House. The time is settled, and the number 
of churches, presuming that Purchase Street Church will be repre- 
sented. We then have only to fix the place, and all the points 
of the case for the hearing are settled, and neither party can 
bring up objections, on the agreement. He proposed to adjourn 
to meet at the Law Library the first of June. 

Mr. Gannett. The Scribe says he sees but three points in 
these arrangements. How many the Pastor of Hollis Street church 
sees, I do not know. I saw but one point this morning, where 
the Scribe sees three ; and if there are three seen by the Scribe, 
the Pastor may see twenty. I wish it settled now, what is to be 
done, if Purchase Street is not represented. Is that the only 
point ? 

Mr. Eliot. Sufficient unto the day, is the evil thereof, and I 
have suffered enough for one day. It would be impossible to 
settle that question now; and suppose the Pastor should say he 
has no other points, he may discover them before the 1st of June, 
and he would then have a right to present them. 

The Council then adjourned, at a quarter of two, to meet in 
Hollis Street Meeting House the 1st of June. 

Supreme Court Room, June 1st, 1841. 
The Council assembled at ten o'clock, this morning, agreeable 
to adjournment in the Law Library, and was called to order by 
the Moderator. The Scribe stated that the Supreme Court Room 
had been procured for the sessions of the Council, which was 
now open to receive them. Whereupon the Council preceded 
by the Moderator, passed into the Supreme Court Room where 
prayers were offered by the Moderator, and the Journal of the 
previous meeting read by the Scribe. The Moderator then stated 
that the Council were ready to hear the parties on the Grounds 
of Complaint preferred against the Rev. John Pierpont on the 
27th of July 1840, by the Committee of the Proprietors of Hol- 
lis Street Society, as reasons for the dissolution of his pastoral 
relation. Mr. Dexter, legal Counsel for the Proprietors, said 
that the Proprietors were prepared with their evidence and wit- 
nesses to proceed to the examination and support of the charges 
preferred by them against the Pastor of Hollis Street Church, 
but that the feeble state of his health, and the fatigue incident to 



108 



recent and severe professional engagements made it impossible 
for him without the hazard of a serious illness to undertake the 
labor of conducting the examination. He felt obliged, therefore, 
though reluctantly, to ask on his own account and for this reason, 
for a further postponement. Rev. Mr. Pierpont by himself and 
through his Council E. M. Washburn, Esq. of Worcester, ex- 
pressed himself ready and prepared to proceed, but willing to 
postpone to such time as might to the convenience of the parties 
be mutually agreed upon. 

After some discussion upon this subject, and the expression of 
deep regret on the part of several members, that the Council 
had thus twice been assembled to no purpose, and the hope that 
when next convened no obstacle to their action would be interposed 
by either party, it was finally on motion of Mr. Gannett 

Voted, That when this Council adjourn it adjourn to meet on 
Tuesday, the 6th day of July next, at 9 o'clock, A. M. 

Some discussion was then had as to the plaee where the future 
services of the Council should be held. Objections were made 
to the Court Room, and its having been ascertained that the 
Hollis Street Meeting House could be procured for the purpose, 
it was on motion of Mr. Young, 

Voted, That when this Council adjourn, it adjourn to meet in 
Hollis Street Meeting-house. 

The Scribe asked to be excused from further service in his 
offiee, but subsequently withdrew his request for the present. 

The Council then adjourned. 



PKOCEE DINGS OF THE COUNCIL, 

ON THE HEARING OF THE GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT, UPON 
THE EVIDENCE. 



Tuesday, July 6, 1841. 

The Council met at 9 o'clock A. M., in Hollis Street Meeting 
House ; present Delegates from all the Churches. Joseph H. 
Dorr appeared as Delegate from the Purchase Street Church, in 
the place of Richard Austin, deceased, and D. H. Barnes, in the 
place of R. W. Baily from the Second Church. The Moderator 
stated they were ready to hear the testimony on the part of the 
Proprietors, in the opening, 

Dexter said that he did not propose to detain the Council in 
the present stage of the inquiry, with any remarks he might have 
to submit. Happily they were at last met, to hear the parties 
upon the merits of the issue between them. There was no longer 
a question as to the jurisdiction of the tribunal, or the matters to 
be inquired into, as the grounds for the action and advice of this 
Council in coming to a result. The question was not whether 
the Pastor of Hollis Street Church should be removed from his 
pastoral relation, for that exceeded the powers of an Ecclesiasti- 
cal Council, but the inquiry was, what advice, touching that re- 
lation, under all the circumstances and the facts in the case, the 
Council will give in their result ; and that advice will be final in 
its effects, as to the matters properly heard here. The facts are 
to be found and finally passed upon by the Council, but whether 
they are sufficient to dissolve the relation, is a matter to be re- 
vised by the Supreme Judicial Court, if either party see fit to 
carry it to that tribunal. 

As he should be obliged to address the Council again in the 
course of the investigation, in a more formal statement of the 
grounds of complaint on behalf of the Proprietors, he should 
prefer doing so, when all the evidence was in, and held it a mat- 
ter of duty not to detain them a moment longer than was ne- 
cessary before proceeding to the testimony, which he should now 
do with the single remark, that it was for the Council to deter- 



110 



mine in what form of sanction the testimony should be received. 
It was presumed, in conformity with usage, and the powers of 
this tribunal, that the witnesses were to be called to state what 
they know upon their personal responsibility, without the form 
required in courts of law. That, however, it was for the Coun- 
cil to determine ; the Proprietors had no preference as to the 
mode that might be adopted. 

Washburn, for the Pastor, suggested, that as the Council were 
to pass upon facts that may materially effect the civil rights of 
the respondent, the testimony ought to be received, under the 
sanction of an oath, as in a court of justice. 

The Moderator would submit to the Council whether they will 
require an oath of the witnesses, or receive their statements in 
another form. It was for them to determine what their powers 
were in this respect. 

Mr. Lothrop doubted the power to administer an oath, and was 
not aware of any precedent of that kind, in the Ecclesiastical 
history of New England. 

Washburn stated that the Supreme Court, in revising the re- 
sult of an Ecclesiastical Council, must take the facts as found 
by them, and if the testimony was not taken under oath here, it 
could not be any where, and he cited the case of Shelden, t o the 
point that the result of a Council is conclusive as to the facts 
found by them. 

Mr. Lothrop. If the testimony could not be re-examined in 
the courts of law, but was to be final as to the facts, the testi- 
mony ought either to be taken under oath, or the parties be left 
to an adjudication by a civil tribunal that could require testimo- 
ny in that form The charges affected the character as well as civil 
rights of the Pastor, and he was unwilling to sit here and deter 
mine the truth or falsehood of such charges, upon simple affirm- 
ative testimony. He wished to learn from the legal counsel, 
whether this body had power to cause the oath to be administer- 
ed by an attending magistrate, or through one of their members 
who was a magistrate ? 

Washburn. If legally constituted, this Council is recognized 
by the Supreme Court, as a judicial tribunal, and as such, has 
power, through a magistrate, to administer an oath, and such 
oath will be binding in law. He cited from the manuscript 
opinion, in the case of Shelden, a remark of the court that " an 
Ecclesiastical Council is a judicial tribunal." 

A member of the Council, who had been of the Council in that 
case, stated that the evidence there was received, not under oath. 

Rand, (after consulting with Dexter) said, both of us entertain 
doubts as to the legal right to administer the oath. If it be an 
extra-judicial oath, it is a penal offence, by statute, though that 
would depend on the construction to be given to that statute. — 



Ill 



It had not been the practice of Ecclesiastical Courts to administer 
the oath to witnesses, nor is this trial the same as a judicial trial. 
In the latter case, it went to the conviction and condemnation of 
the party: here it was not for conviction or punishment, but in order 
to satisfy the judgments and consciences of the Council as to 
the advice they should give between the parties. In Shelden's 
case, the examination was without oath, and so in all like cases, 
where charges immediately affecting character have been passed 
upon. To us it is a matter of indifference what mode is adopt- 
ed. It may be important to the Council. They must be gov- 
erned by the law, and the usage of ecclesiastical bodies. But if 
they have not the power to administer an oath, to refuse to pro- 
ceed without it, would be, in effect, to abolish such a tribunal. 

Dexter. Though facts found by an Ecclesiastical Council, are 
not inquired into by the Supreme Court, as a general rule, I ap- 
prehend this applies to matters not cognizable by a jury, questions 
of discipline, manner, doctrines, &c. in the pastoral office. No 
case has occurred where the finding of a Council, or a charge of 
immorality is held conclusive, and no decision settles the ques- 
tion whether charges of that nature are re-examiuable in a Court 
of Law. I am not clear that upon all such charges, the party 
affected by the result of a Council might not demand a hearing 
before a jury. An analogous case may be found, in Referees. — 
They have the power of proceeding under oath or not, as they 
please, and their award is as binding upon evidence not under 
oath, as with that sanction. 

Washburn. The distinction is clear between the finding of a 
Council as to facts and the subject matter of the finding. The 
latter, the Courts of Law will re-examine, but the facts found by 
a Council are conclusive on the Court. 

Mr. Pierpont did not intend to insist upon any point, disres- 
pectfully, but he must urge this. It was apparently a great de- 
parture from the principles of the Common Law to allow the 
Proprietors here to give evidence in their own cause. That I 
waive in order that the trial may go on, but I cannot waive the 
right to be protected in that evidence by the sanction of an oath. 
If the Proprietors are allowed to testify, it is obvious the Pastor 
must be, and I am willing to waive other objections, and let both 
parties, if they please, testify in their own cause ; but I have the 
right to ask the sanction of an oath, and that I do ask. 

Mr. Lothrop. The whole question depends, in my mind wheth- 
er the hearing here, upon the facts, is final. If I had at first 
known the law and the facts as I now do, I would never have con- 
sented to sit in this Council. I did not understand the grounds 
upon which the charges of the 6th of April were put upon re- 
cord. Had I known that the Parish had power to vote a dismis- 
sion upon such charges, and withhold the salary, and the Pastor 
could bring his action in a court of law and try the charges, I 



112 



should have refused to come here, and told the Pastor to sue for 
his salary and try the question in the courts, and I should have 
advised my church not to be here. But we are here now, and it 
may be best to proceed, though the usage clearly is against the 
oath. Without the oath, I feel unwilling to hear evidence affect- 
ing moral character, that is to be final upon the facts. We may, 
perhaps, classify the charges, and hear affirmative testimony on 
all that relates to discipline, manner and doctrine, and upon all 
moral charges, refer the parties to a legal tribunal. 

Mr. Waterston. If we are recognized by the Supreme Court 
as a Judicial Tribunal, it seems to me we have the right to ad- 
minister oaths. If referees have, why have not we? 
Dexter. Special power is given to them by statute. 
Mr. Waterston. I should have no apprehension that the Su- 
preme Court, after calling us a Judicial Tribunal, would punish 
us for administering an extra-judicial oath. 

Mr. Lothrop. It seems clear that we cannot administer the 
oath without the intervention of a proper magistrate, but my 
difficulty is, if we have not power to administer it, as a body, 
what right have we to direct another to administer it, or insist 
that it shall be taken by the witness. 

Dexter. There is undoubtedly no power to commit a witness 
if he refuses to testify. 

Rand. We have no objection to the oath* we only doubt the 
authority of the Council. Unquestionably their decision is suf- 
ficient evidence of the facts probably found by them. 

Mr. Sullivan. When a Parish elects to proceed against their 
Pastor at law, they make affirmative charges, which of them- 
selves, if true, work a dissolution, but when they select a Coun- 
cil, the decision of that body is to be made, not on strict legal 
evidence, as in the case of charges affecting character, but upon 
the conviction of the Council from all that is heard and presented, 
and under all the circumstances. This consideration does not 
render an oath essential to testimony here, as in courts of law. 
Neither is this Council a tribunal under oath, nor its members 
bound by oath of office. The usage for two hundred years, in 
ecclesiastical bodies, has been to hear testimony not under oath, 
and it must be founded on some reason. 

The Moderator. It is a well settled usage as to hearing evi- 
dence without oath. He remembered two cases in which the gra- 
vest charges were examined without the oath. 

Mr. Lothrop. The power of an Ecclesiastical Council extends 
to finding, not merely the facts, but grave suspicions of facts, as 
on these grave suspicions a minister may be dismissed. Now I 
cannot sit in a Council, consistent with my sense of justice, and 
brand a man with my grave suspicions, unless he has had a hear- 
ing under oath. 

Mr. Pierpont. Suppose this Council find that I am guilty of 



113 



the grave charges. I carry it before the Supreme Court. I go 
for my salary. The Proprietors plead the result of Council. I 
answer that such is the result, but it was not found under oath. 
The Court will tell me, you are too late; you have been before a 
judicial tribunal, and should have insisted upon it there. This is 
a judicial tribunal, and it requires no statute to give it power to 
administer an oath. He had inquired of Dr. Woods, of Andover, 
who informed him that he had known frequent cases of the testi- 
mony being taken under oath, but he could not specify any one. 
In the recent case of Rev. Mr. Allen of Shrewsbury, the testi- 
mony was not under oath, but the right to it was conceded. 

Mr. Sullivan inquired, if the counsel for the Proprietors were 
satisfied to take the risk of rejecting the application for the oath, 
as affecting the result ? 

Rand. Certainly. 

Mr. Gannett. I understand that, so far as the facts submitted 
to this Council, are concerned, the finding, as in the case of a 
verdict, is final, and the Courts of law will not take up the evi- 
dence and go over it again. In all the cases that have been read 
to us, I do not remember one where the Court went into an in- 
quiry upon the facts; therefore I infer they take the finding as 
conclusive. It is true, that we may come to a result either upon 
facts or grave suspicions, but we must have evidence to prove 
either ; and the only question is, in what form. The Court may 
make the finding of this Council final, or they may annul it, but 
they cannot go behind our finding, in matters of fact. These 
facts are of such a nature, that it is more proper they should be 
analyzed in an Ecclesiastical Council, than in a Court of law, 
and that, I take it, is the reason we are here. It is stated that, 
by a recent statute, it is a penal offence to administer extra-judi- 
cial oaths. In the Bedford case, I have a strong impression that 
the witnesses were under oath, but I am not certain. The con- 
clusion I came to, is, that on general principles, the witnesses 
ought to be under oath, but I am thrown off, by the intimation 
that it is unlawful. He should like to see the terms of the 
statute. 

Mr. Waterston was willing to run the risk of the statute to settle 
a question so important as this. 

The statute was produced, and read as follows — [Revised Sta- 
tutes, chap. 128, sec. 24] — " If any person shall administer, or 
assume to administer to another, any oath, or any obligation in 
the nature of an oath, which is not required or authorized by law, 
or if any person shall voluntarily suffer any such oath or obliga- 
tion to be administered to him, or shall voluntarily take the 
same, he shall be punished by fine not exceeding two hundred 
dollars, nor less than five dollars — provided that nothing con- 
tained in this section shall be construed to extend to any oath or 
affidavit for the purpose of establishing any claim, petition or 



114 



application of an individual or corporation, which shall be admin- 
istered without intentional secrecy, by any person authorized to 
administer oaths, or to any oath, affidavit or deposition for the 
verification of commercial papers, or any papers or documents re- 
lating to property, or which may be required by any public agent, 
officer, or tribunal of the United States, or of any state, or any 
other country, nor in any way to abridge the authority of any 
magistrate." 

Mr. Sullivan now moved that the witnesses be put under oath, 
and it was so voted unanimously. It being ascertained that no 
member of the Council was qualified as a magistrate, though 
several had been appointed Justices of the Peace, it was voted 
that Mr. Sullivan be requested to qualify himself, and adminis- 
ter the oaths. 

The Grounds of Complaint and Specifications, were then put in. 
GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT. 

Grounds of Complaint preferred against the Rev. John Pierpont 
by the Parish called the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting 
House, to be submitted to a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, as rea- 
sons for dissolving his connexion with said Parish. 

First. That the Rev. Mr. Pierpont has ceased to be a usefnl 
minister of said Parish, and has alienated the affections and lost 
the respect of a large portion of his people by reason of his at- 
tention having been diverted from the duties of his sacred calling, 
to secular pursuits and popular controversies. 

Under this article of complaint, evidence will be offered of Mr. 
Pierpont's too great devotion of his time to mecanical contrivan- 
ces, and to the compiling of school books and other writings for 
pecuniary profit — of his too great devotion to the supposed science 
of Phrenology, by attending the meeting of Phrenological Socie- 
ties, and lectures, and lecturing himself upon the subject in dif- 
ferent places. Of his too busy interference with questions of 
legislation on the subject of prohibiting the sale of ardent spir- 
its. Of his too busy interference with questions of legislation, 
on the subject of imprisonment for debt — of his too busy inter- 
ference with the popular controversy on the subject of the abo- 
lition of slavery. 

Second. That the Rev. John Pierpont has alienated the affec- 
tions and lost the respect of a large portion of his people by his 
unkind and excited manner of preaching on the subject of the 
manufacture and sale of ardent spirits, imprisonment for debt, 
abolition of slavery and other popular controversies. 

Third. That after a difference had arisen between the Rev. 
John Pierpont and many of his Parishioners, upon some of the 
subjects above mentioned, he has not pursued a kind or concilia- 
ting course, but on the contrary, has continued and conducted the 



115 



controversy with his Parishioners, in a harsh, contemptuous, vin- 
dictive and unchristian spirit, by which the minds and affections 
of a large portion of his parish are justly alienated from their 
minister. 

Under this ground of complaint evidence will be offered of the 
conduct of Mr. Pierpont towards individuals of his parish, of his 
remarks in the pulpit and elsewhere, and of his published letters 
to committees of individuals of his Parish. 

Fourth. That the Kev. John Pierpont has in his published 
letters to Committees or individuals of his Parish, respecting the 
said controversy, been guilty of great levity, indecorum, and 
want of reverence for the Holy Scriptures, and his own sacred 
calling, by which he has justly lost the respect and confidence of 
a great portion of his parish, and of the public, and brought a 
scandal upon his office as a christian minister. 

Fifth. That the Rev. John Pierpont has in the pulpit and 
elsewhere in public, unnecessarily made indelicate statements and 
allusions, by which his audiences and more especially the female 
portion thereof have been mortified and disgusted, and the confi- 
dence of a large portion of his Parish and of the public, in the 
purity of his mind and motives been impaired and his usefulness 
greatly diminished. 

Under this ground of complaint evidence will be offered of Mr* 
Pierpont's having spoken in his pulpit without any necessity or suf- 
ficient excuse, of the indecent practices of foreign countries, and 
of his having unnecessarily and indelicately alluded to certain 
supposed phrenological organs in one or more lectures delivered 
by him before a mixed audience of males and females. 

Sixth. That the Rev. John Pierpont has in his secular deal- 
ings been wanting in that scrupulous integrity, which is necessary 
to the respectability and usefulness of a christian minister. 

Under this ground of complaint evidence will be offered of his 
breach of engagement in the following particulars, viz : 

Pledging to another the copyright of a book, which he had en- 
gaged with Mr. W. B. Fowle not to dispose of without first of- 
fering it to him, not having first offered the same to said Fowle. 

Wholly neglecting and omitting (without any justifiable excuse) 
to furnish Mr. W. W. Clapp, one of his parishioners, with letters 
from him, while in Europe, for publication in the Evening Ga- 
zette, he having entered into a written agreement so to do, and 
having received from said Clapp, and negotiated his acceptances 
for two hundred and fifty dollars as the consideration for writing 
said letters. 

Communicating and suffering to be made public, and to be pub- 
licly sold, a newly invented Steel Hone, which Dr. Bemis, the 
inventor, had entrusted to him for his private use, upon his un- 
dertaking that he would not communicate or make known the 
same. Claiming as his own, or wilfully permitting the invention 



116 



of said Hone, to be publicly attributed to him, without contradic- 
tion, he well knowing the same was not invented by himself, but 
by said Bemis. 

Seventh. That the Rev. John Pierpont has been wanting in 
that scrupulous regard for truth, which should distinguish a chris- 
tian minister. 

Under this ground of complaint, evidence will be offered of Mr. 
Pierpont's having denied expressing remarks made by him in his 
sermons and upon other occasions, and of his having denied the 
writing of a certain theatrical Prologue, or other compositions 
written by him. 

Eighth. That the conduct of the Rev. John Pierpont has not 
been such, in his general demeanor, as to promote and secure 
peace and harmony in his Parish, but on the contrary, has been 
such, as to foment divisions and dissatisfactions among them, 
which can only be allayed by a dissolution of the connexion be- 
tween him and his parish. 

Ninth. That the Rev. John Pierpont has in his preaching and 
upon other occasions, manifested a want of that decorum, gravi- 
ty, gentleness and discretion, both in matter and in manner, which 
are essential to the usefulness and respectability of a christian 
minister. 

And under all the foregoing general grounds of complaint, such 
particular facts as may tend to substantiate the same, will be of- 
fered on evidence. 

(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, 

JOHN D. WILLIAMS, 
DANIEL WELD, 
RICHARDS CHILD, 
WM. W. CLAPP, 
TIMO. TILESTON, 
RUEL BAKER, 
WARREN WHITE, 

Boston, July 27th, 1840. 
To the Rev. John Pierpont, Minister of the Hollis Street Meeting 
House. 
Sir :— 

The subscribers, a Committee appointed by the Proprietors of 
Hollis Street Meeting House, having heretofore presented to you 
a copy of the votes passed at a meeting, holden the 6th of April 
last, assigning their reasons for desiring a dissolution of your 
connexion with them, now present to you the enclosed articles 
of complaint drawn up in pursuance of said votes which the So- 
ciety propose to submit to a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council. We 
respectfully request you to notify us whether you will join with 



Committee of 
Hollis Street Society. 



117 



Committee. 



the Society in calling a Council to deliberate and decide there- 
upon. 

(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, 

JOHN D. WILLIAMS, 
DANIEL WELD, 
EICHARDS CHILD, 
WM. W. CLAPP, 
TIMO. TILESTON, 
WARREN WHITE, 
RUEL BAKER, 

The Council then adjourned — having voted to hold one one ses- 
sion a day, from nine until one o'clock. 

Wednesday, July 7th, 1841. 
Met at 9 o'clock. Prayer by Rev. Mr. Frothingham. Jour- 
nal read. 

The Moderator then called the attention of the Council to the 
first charges and specifications. 

Rand, for the Proprietors, proceeded to read the correspond- 
ence, stating that it would be more convenient to put in the 
evidence generally, than to single out particular points. The 
reading was dispensed with, it being agreed that the whole cor- 
respondence was to be received as in evidence. 

Washburn said that he should object to any correspondence 
subsequent to the 27th of July, 1840, the date of the charges. 

Rand said he should offer all the subsequent correspondence ; 
but if that was to be made a question, it would more properly 
come up in another stage of the case. 

Mr. Gannett objected to proceeding to an examination at 
large, requiring the Council to separate and classify the evi- 
dence. 

Rand. The charges must be specific, but the usual course 
was to examine witnesses as to the whole matter each knew, 
otherwise the same witness must be repeatedly called, and kept 
from day to day. 

The Counsel for the Proprietors were left to pursue such 
course as they deemed expedient. 

Joshua Crane, sworn by Mr. Sullivan, to tell the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 

Rand then asked the witness to state what he knew in rela- 
tion to the charges preferred against the Rev. John Pierpont. 

Mr. Gannett objected to so general a question, more general 
than his imagination had conceived of. He insisted on the wit- 
ness being confined to each specification, and required to tell 
what he knew on that point, otherwise it would be impossible to 
classify the evidence on each charge. 

Rand said it would require a course of examination different 



118 



form any he was accustomed to, or had witnessed in his experi- 
ence in Courts of law. 

Mr. Lothrop thought it was very practicable to put specific 
questions to each point. It would greatly aid the Council in 
coming to their result. The witnesses, he conceived, should be 
interrogated, as to each charge and specification. 

Mr. Sullivan took a very different view. The object of the 
specification of charges was to give the respondent opportunity 
to answer, but the charge was general, as to the fitness of the 
Pastor, in his general conduct and relations, and it would be ex- 
tremely embarrassing to interrupt the current of a witness' knowl- 
edge of facts, by requiring him to confine his statement to each 
particular point, on which it might have a bearing. 

Mr. Pierpont. It should be recollected that the result of this 
Council would go before the Supreme Court, and they would re- 
quire that the finding should be specific, as to the charges proved 
or not proved. He submitted that it would be extremely incor- 
rect to permit a witness to state generally all he knew as to the 
whole matter, and thus throw the testimony all into a mass 
together. 

Rand pointed out the inconvenience of such a course. He 
should be required to read over each of these numerous charges 
to every witness, and ask him what he knew of that. It would 
be found inconvenient to the Council and embarrassing to the 
witnesses. He hoped the Council would allow the Proprietors 
to take the course which is usual in legal investigation, but of 
course they should submit to any direction the Council may re- 
quire. 

Mr. Pierpont said there were nine charges, each capable of a 
distinct issue, and to these the evidence should be confined. To 
some of them he should plead guilty, and it would be unneces- 
sary to detain the Council in hearing evidence on those matters 
which he deemed wholly immaterial in this investigation. 

Mr. Sullivan did not consider the case as presented in the form 
of special pleading, but of specifications under the general issue, 
and he considered that the general question was the proper one 
to put. 

Mr. Barrett did not so view it, and desired the opinion of the 
Council. 

Mr. Waterston was of opinion that each witness might be ex- 
amined in the order of the charges. 

Rand suggested that this would be found inconvenient, and 
would take much more time than the ordinary course. He 
would, however, conform to it, as far as practicable, if the Council 
desired it. 

Mr. Lothrop moved that the Counsel proceed as they think 
proper, in the examination of witnesses, until the Council shall 
direct a different proceeding. This was voted, 12, 67. 



119 



The question was then put to witness — Will you state any 
facts you know going to substantiate either of the charges ? 

A question arose as to the right of the witness to refer to a 
written statement he held in his hand, drawn up by himself, re- 
cently. 

Rand referred to the well-known rule that a witness might re- 
fresh his recollection from any memorandum made by him at any 
time, and the Courts had gone so far as to allow a witness to re- 
fresh his recollection from the writing of another. 

Washburn. If it was a written statement of the testimony in- 
tended to be given, it was not proper, and could not be admit- 
ted. 

Mr. Crane said he had made memoranda in reference to the 
arguments of the Pastor, at the previous hearing before the Coun- 
cil, censuring his course as one of the Committee. 

Washburn insisted that this was a departure from all rule. He 
objected to all examination here, except to the charges in issue. 

Mr. Crane only proposed to answer so much of the Pastor's 
discourse in the opening of these proceedings, as related to himself 
as Chairman. 

The Moderator thought that such a course could not be pursued 
with propriety. 

Mr. Young. We now see the inconvenience of the rule we 
have adopted, and I move that the witnesses be examined to each 
specific charge. 

Rand. The witness was desirous of making an explanation in 
relation to himself. The counsel for the Proprietors did not insist 
on that point, and would waive it. 

Mr. Sullivan suggested that the proposal of Mr. Young to re- 
verse the recent vote, had not grown out of any test of the rule. 
The witness was proceeding to explain the relation in which he 
stood as Chairman. This was clearly not evidence, and he should 
be confined to his answers to the general question. 

Mr. Young insisted on his motion, that each witness be required 
to testjfy to the charges, in their order, which was voted. 

Dexter. Do we understand that we are to take up the charge 
of July, or April, or both ? 

Mr. Lothrop. Only those of July are in the case. 

Mr. Dexter then proceeded to the examination. 

Mr. Crane, again took the stand, the first charge was read to 
him. 

Dexter. Can you state any thing relative to the Pastor's loss 
of the affections of the Parish, by reason of attending too much 
to other than parochial affairs ? 

Washburn objected to the question, on the ground that it was 
not sufficiently confined to the specifications. 

Mr. Pierpout, objected entirely to evidence not pertinent to 



120 



the distinct general grounds, or specific charges under the grounds 
of complaint. 

[The difficulty was, as to the bearing and the use to be made 
of some language in the last clause of the grounds of complaint' 
and several gentlemen made remarks. Mr. Lothrop read the 
resolution of the Council, which indicated the outline of the 
manner in which the investigation was to be conducted, and upon 
which this Council was agreed upon by the parties. He thought 
this question of evidence did not require argument.] 

Washburn. We only meant to present the Respondent's views 
on this point, so that this body may judge whether they will 
support them or not. 

Dexter. That will open a general discussion on both sides. — 
Is that desirable ? 

Mr. Pierpont argued from the circumstances, phraseology, &c. 
of the closing paragraph of the grounds of complaint, that he 
never agreed to be bound to go into any inquiry relative to the 
matter covered by it. They are additional, said he, to the grounds 
of complaint of July, and if the Council do go into such inqui- 
ry as is proposed, they do so under my protest. 

Mr. Gannett. We understand that the most ample and exclu- 
sive authority, by agreement, lies in us, to interpret the Grounds of 
Complaint. We came here with that understanding. 

Mr. Lothrop. It seems, that we have a question, whether this 
last clause, afterwards added, was ever agreed to be a part of the 
Grounds of Complaint. I am willing to hear the parties argue 
that question. 

Washburn. We claim that the agreement of July shall con- 
stitute the whole ground of the present inquiry, and proceeding, 
without alteration, and if this clause was embraced in that 
agreement, we have nothing to say — but this point the Council 
must first rule. 

The Moderator. I supposed that we were to be governed by 
the document of 27th July, called, " Grounds of Complaint," 
just as it stands. I put to you, brethren, the question. 

[It was then voted, that the inquiry proceed, considering this 
last clause as included in the grounds of complaint, the Council, 
to interpret the meaning of the words.] 



TESTIMONY FOR THE PROPRIETORS. 



Joshua Crane, in answer to Dexter' s question. Mr. Pierpont's se- 
cular engagements, such as writing books, attending too much to the 
School Committee, &c» have operated on my mind and upon others, 
to destroy affection for him, as our Pastor. The " National Read- 
er" was one of the books. All the books of which I complain were 
secular. He has given his attention to lecturing on extraneous sub- 
jects, though, I think, I never heard him so lecture. He admitted in 
a sermon before he went to Europe, that he had done so too much; 
said he had injured his health, and that if his life was spared, he 
would devote himself on his return to his people. Another com- 
plaint has been his too great attention to mechanical pursuits and 
phrenology, a subject on which he has lectured. 

I have no doubt that dissatisfaction has been caused by his interfe- 
rence with subjects of legislation. Such as, Temperance, Imprison* 
ment for debt, and the Abolition of Slavery. I have heard people 
complain of it. He went to Europe, I think, in the fall q/*1835. / 
urged his going to Europe, and urged it upon Deacon May, and oth- 
ers of his friends, that as there were hard feelings against him 
then, a year's absence would, perhaps, allay them, and renew the 
interest of his people. While he was absent, the people began to 
long for his return. After he came back, and on the first Sabbath, 
on which he preached, the church was crowded. He said, before he 
began his sermon, that he supposed some came from curiosity, and, 
that, if so, he pitied them. I was sorry, that he used this language, 
but though some disliked it, I forgave it, though 1 thought the people 
deserved better treatment. 

He was involved in debt. We raised a good deal of money for 
him. The most of it came from those, who now oppose him. Af- 
ter he began to get disembarrassed, he commenced lecturing on these 
foreign subjects and he didn't seem to be so anxious to please the 
people. He neglected visiting his people who were sick and in af- 
fliction. I had the misfortune to lose all my children, seventeen or 
eighteen years ago, in one fortnight. They were three in number, 
and I never saw him in my house on a single visit upon the occasion 
of their sickness and death. 

He was once seen by my wife, I was absent. This was the only 
call. He attended the funerals of the first and third, but was absent 
from the city at the time of the death of the second. 

There was no personal disagreement between Mr. Pierpont and 
myself at the time, though I was not so intimate with him then as I 
have been since. I then had strong love and respect for him. He 
was in no situation at that time, which prevented his calling. Oth- 
16 



122 



ers of his people complained of similar neglect. I never had any 
explanation with him of this matter. 

I recollect a sermon preached soon after the Alton affair, (the 
death of Lovejoy the Abolitionist,) when he was very much excited 
and worked himself into a great phrenzy, and I should suppose, he 
forgot w r here he was. He forgot to call for a contribution to be taken 
that day, till he was reminded of it by Deacon May. 

At one time, he mentioned, in the pulpit, that he had a notice in 
his hand, which he would not read, as he had concluded upon a rule, 
not to read any notice, unless upon leave of the Standing Committee. 
This notice was said to have been a call for a Colonization meeting, 
but at a subsequent period, he read an abolition notice without leave 
of the Committee. The sermon on the Alton matter was on a com- 
munion day. He used to preach on Slavery, but I did not complain 
so much, of his preaching on such subjects, as I did of his manner of 
doing it, though I did not think such subjects exactly proper for the 
pulpit, especially on a communion day. 

Washburn suggested, that testimony as to opinion of manner was 
inadmissable without a description of it, as one's opinion of manner, 
was only a matter of taste. 

Dexter, supported the mode of examination and it proceeded. 

Wit?iess. His manner was excited, when on these kind of sub- 
jects, and in his Alton sermon, I thought indicative of anger. I have 
heard him, in preaching, make remarks, meant as, I thought, person- 
al allusions to individuals. They would bear the application. The 
people, or some of them, were so much aggrieved by his manner of 
preaching that on September 10th, 1838, there was a meeting held 
and a committee chosen to confer with the pastor. There are no 
slave-holders or slave-dealers in the Society, or persons, to my 
knowledge, suspected of it. Objections existed in my mind, to his 
preaching on such subjects, as well as to his style of treating them. 
When upon subjects commonly preached upon from the pulpit, he 
did not exhibit that excited manner, though he was often earnest. — 
The conduct of the Pastor tended to foment party division in the 
Society. 

As to his preaching on the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits, 
I have heard complaints, though I never made an)' complaints my- 
self, or heard any thing which I felt like complaining of. I told him, 
before he went to Europe, that people complained of his manner, on 
certain subjects, and on that >ubject, but not so much of his matter. 
He exhibited a bitter and excited feeling on Slavery, &c. and once 
in a sermon said " I have much to say to you, but you will not bear 
it now." It seemed as though he wanted to say something but dared 
not. 

His preaching on Imprisonment for Debt caused complaint many 
years ago. He has since made aliusions to the subject. I don't re- 
member when. In the sermon twenty years since, it was supposed 
he meant to be personal, and the wound it caused, has never been 
healed. I did not hear it myself. He once preached a sermon on 
" the moral rule of political action," which was objectionable. It 
was the year when the Amory Hall Party was got up, after election 
and during the winter. I was a member of the legislature and 
thought he meant a part of it for me. The idea seemed to be, that 
those who did not vote a particular way or for a particular ticket, 
were enemies to temperance. 



123 



I have sat Sunday after Sunday, getting no good, even if the 
preaching was ever so good, from a constant fear that he would say 
some impudent thing, which his enemies would get hold of. I have 
never read the printed political action sermon. I was so indignant 
that I could not, but it does not seem so long in print as I should 
think it would from the length of time it occupied in the delivery. — 
He was on the subject in the forenoon and afternoon. I did not at- 
tend in the afternoon. 

At this time I had no hard feelings on account of his neglecting me 
In my afflictions. After his Alton sermon, I had a conversation with 
him and was rather satisfied he would not repeat such conduct, and I 
forgave him for that. 

Once when I spoke to him, of a hope and belief that the people 
would become more conciliated, his reply was, " well, they'll come 
round, in their own time." This hurt my feelings. 

He told me once, that our Saviour came not to bring peace, but a 
sword. This was in reply to a remark I made in relation to our Sa- 
viour's example in abstaining from exciting topics. He would some- 
times preach in a style so ingenious, that people could not get hold 
of precise expressions which were objectionable, but he would con- 
vey a covert meaning, hurting and wounding the feelings of mem- 
bers of his Parish. The first thing which caused me to withdraw 
my confidence in him, was his prescribing a rule as to giving notices 
to which he did not adhere. I have had no personal intercourse with 
him since these present troubles begun. I resigned the office of 
Treasurer, so that I might not be obliged to meet him. This was in 
the winter of 1838 — 9. During that winter, when going up to the 
State House, I told Deacon May, that I was sorry that I had ever 
been made so much of a fool as to believe that Mr. Pierpont would 
keep any of his promises. The Deacon replied, emphatically, " It 
is not you, but the man, who makes a fool of himself.' 1 I have 
heard that Deacon May denies this, but he did say it. 

[Mr. Gannett objected to the witness repeating such conversations 
and hearsay, as being irrelavant. These words of Deacon May 
were not said under oath.] 

Witness. I was then complaining of the political action sermon, 
and promises referred to were, those made me, after the Alton ser- 
mon. I thought he promised not to preach in that manner. 

[With regard to the objection just noted, the Counsel of the par- 
ties agreed, that the rule was not to take individual's language and 
declarations from hearsay, unless denied by the author, when ques- 
tioned as a witness, but that general complaint and opinion were com- 
petent to be proved.] 

Witness. The Society has seemed gradually to fall off since Mr. 
Pierpont became pastor. He has made indelicate allusions in the 
pulpit. In a sermon preached after his return from Europe, he spoke 
of the price charged in Corinth by courtezans for their favors. I 
don't remember whether he stated what the price was, but I think he 
did, for if I remember riirht, I was struck at the time that the price 
was very extravagant. There was no ambiguity in it. He spoke 
once of the Catholic Clergy, as being the best fed, best clothed, and 



124 



as possessing the passions of other men. These instances of ind 
icacy were offensive and caused disgust, as I heard, to ladies, 
should guess this to be six months after his return from Europe. 

[The Moderator put several questions, the purport of which was' 
to discover whether or not the fault of Mr. Pierpont might be one of 
mere taste ] 

Witness thought it more than mere bad taste. Mr. Pierpont did 
not say these things by way of illustrating a moral precept, but in a 
narration of his foreign travels. 

Witness. I heard,, in Faneuil Hall, in a meeting against Imprison-' 
ment for Debt, something from Mr. Pierpont which struck me as very 
coarse. I don't remember the connection, but speaking of women 
of a certain character, he used the word " whores." I felt hurt, 
because I thought he might have used a more delicate term. I 
I don't know of any instance of his indelicacy in private, or any 
others than those already named, 

[The witness was asked by Mr. Dexter 3 whether he knew anything 
relative to the 9th charge. He replied, that he supposed, his testi- 
mony already given related to that charge. He couldn't say how far 
dissatisfaction had grown out of things there mentioned, but, he, 
himself had been moved by all the occurrences taken together.] 

Cross-examined. The intimacy and friendship between Mr. Pier- 
pont and myself was not withdrawn entirely until after the preaching 
of the sermon, on the moral rule of political action. It lasted pretty 
much as before, up to then, though it had been somewhat impaired, 
before, it had been healed. 

As to the visitation of Providence some seventeen or eighteen 
years ago, to which I have referred, I will say that he preached a 
sermon, on the subject, which was to me and my family very consola- 
tory. Mr. Pierpont loaned me the sermon, at my request, for private 
perusal. 

[The witness was understood to say, that it was from a text like 
this, my children are taken from me, and I am desolate.] 

As an instance of neglect of parish duty, Mr. Pierpont made a long 
journey to the west, without leave of the Society. I can't tell when 
it was, but it was before he went to Europe. Mr. Clarke of Louis- 
ville, preached for him during that absence. Mr. Pierpont preached 
in the west, as I heard. My old mother has complained that Mr, 
Pierpont neglected visiting her. She has complained that when he 
has called at my house, and found my wife and myself absent, he has 
not gone in and held conversation with her, although she had gone 
to the door and met him. She felt, at this, that he considered her an 
old woman and not worth noticing. She belonged to his church and 
resided in my family. Very likely he might nave conversed with 
her in general conversations with the family, but I don't remember 
any such occasion, when she was present. There may have been. 

I should think, there were one hundred and twenty or one hundred 
and thirty persons paid taxes when I was Treasurer, some three or 
four years ago. I can't name other objectionable sermons, than those 
I have specified, they are too numerous for memory. My friendship 



125 



for Mr, Pierpont was so strong, that I did not complain when others 
did. He constantly, preached sermons which caused complaint. 
[It being one o'clock, the Council here adjourned.] 

Thursday Morning, 8th July. 

Session opened with prayer. The Scribe read the Journal of the 
previous day, — when the Moderator informed the parties that the 
Council were ready to proceed. The cross-examination of 

Joshua Crane, was resumed by Washburn. 

Witness. I never had any explanation with Mr. Pierpont, relative 
to his neglect of my family in an affliction. I was young then, and 
hardly knew what was a minister's duty. I don't know that any ex- 
tra sum of money was ever raised by the Society, to supply the pul- 
pit for Mr. Pierpont, until his going to Europe. They did do so, on 
the occasion, and raised money to supply it, during his absence. 

A sum of $1710 was raised and presented to him after his return, 
and I should think $200 or $300 was added by the ladies. The 
larger part of the money came from persons now opposed to him, 
and some of them were at that time, somewhat dissatisfied with him. 
At the time of this last subscription, it was said that Mr. Pierpont 
was a good deal embarrassed with debt. Deacon May told me that 
the sum Mr. Pierpont owed was $1500. 1 had told the Deacon in a 
former conversation on the subject that if we knew how much he 
owed, I thought we could raise the money and relieve him. 

The notice read by Mr. Pierpont, in contravention, as I suppose, 
of his own rule, was submitted, I believe to the Standing Committee. 
I know nothing about it, of my own knowledge. As to the vote of 
September 10th, 1838, I don't know whether it is now, in writing or 
not. It was in writing. I did not write it and don't know who did. 
I don't know who handed it to me, to be opened, or who requested 
me to offer it. Mr. Moses Williams did not hand it to me. In my 
opinion, Mr. Daniel Weld handed it to me. I have seen Moses 
Williams' hand-writing and think I should recognize his signature, 
if it was shown to me. 

Washburn asked the witness, if in his opinion, that paper was in 
Moses Williams' hand-writing. 

Dexter objected to stating mere belief, or opinion, unless the rule 
should be made to apply on both sides. 

[After some discussion, Washburn waived the question, for the 

sake of saving time, supposing he could prove the fact, in another 

way.] 

Witness. Mr. Williams had, at that time, I think, removed out 
of town. Should think he has worshipped in Hollis Street Church, 
say within six years. There was a minority opposed to Mr. Pier- 
pont, before he went to Europe, I should call their number, from 
fifteen to twenty-five. These were open opponents. Others were 
dissatisfied. Mr. Charles Ellis once made a motion to reduce his 
salary. His opposition was then very active. I should think, Mr. 
Pierpont had received personal attention at the house of Mr. Moses 
Williams, within six years. 

Every body with whom I talked was dissatisfied with the sermon 
on the Alton affair. Deacon May was, for one. Some ladies, now 



126 



the Pastor's friends, were displeased. I was reconciled with him 3 
after that sermon, in consequence of an interview. I never had any 
interview on the subject of the political action sermon. 

[ Witness was asked whether, at noon, after hearing that sermon 
in the morning, he did not say " Now Mr. Pierpont must go," — or 
words to that effect. He answered, that he did not remember it; 
that it might be so, doubtless he had at sometimes usued similar lan- 
guage.] 

I received a copy of that printed sermon, but not from Mr. Pier- 
pont. It came, I think, with a note from Mr. Francis Jackson. I 
should say, that the last sale of pews in this house, of which I have 
any knowledge, was one year ago. I have had offers for mine from 
one of Mr. Pierpont's friends. There are many owners of pews 
who do not attend meeting here, I have not worshipped here since 
the political action sermon. I don't know of any person, who, in 
1840, owned more than two or three pews in his own right. I should 
think that there had been several transfers of pews within two years. 
I transferred one, myself. The friends of Mr. Pierpont got the ma- 
jority by buying up pews, and his opponents took the same course, 
and they got the majority. Money was subscribed for the purpose, 
I gave my portion. One person, John D. Weld, had ten or twelve 
pews standing in his name, but did not own them, himself. He 
used to worship here, and would now, if we had a different minister. 
1 have seen him here within six years, not within four, perhaps. I 
made the transfer of the pew of mint;, I spoke of, after the contri- 
bution was made to buy up pews. The sum raised was $1700, or 
$1800. I don't know of any pews bought, for that purpose by Mr. 
Pierpont's opponents, than those I have named. I don't know of 
my own knowledge, that his friends, bought pews for that purpose. 
Some pews have been sold at action within three or four years, and 
happened to be bought by opponents. Some of the transfers made 
may perhaps not appear upon record, as they may have been some- 
times made by endorsement only, on the back of the deed. It is not 
absolutely necessary that they should be recorded. 

[Objections was made by Mr. Eliot, to spending time by so strict 
and numerous questions, as to dates, it being impossible that a wit- 
ness should remember them. Mr. Washburn said, that it became 
important to do so, for the purpose of fixing the relation of some 
facts to others, material in the case.] 

Witness. Mr. Motte's meeting-house would not, in my opinion, 
have been built, had it not been for dissatisfaction with Mr. Pier- 
pont. Twelve or fifteen, perhaps more, left this Society and went 
there. I don't remember whether Mr. Pierpont did or did not assist 
in the ceremonies, at the founding of that church. 

I never have had any conversation with Mr. Pierpont on the sub- 
ject of the indelicacy spoken of. Our interviews have been generally 
brief and of a business character. I do not remember that this in- 
delicacy was used as a historical reference to the subsequent degra- 
dation of Corinth, as the result of their crimes. I remember that 
one female spoke of this part of the sermon in a tone of disgust; I 
could not have heard many, for it was not a subject to be discussed 
between ladies and gentlemen. 



127 



Dexter wished to ask the witness whether the lady whom he had 
heard speak on the subject, told him what were the feelings of other 
ladies in the Parish, and whether or not they were also disgusted. 

Washburn objected, that it could be mere hearsay testimony. If 
they wanted to prove the fact, the way would be to bring the wit- 
ness, so that on cross-examination alt the facts might be brought out. 

Mr. Gannett thought the Council ought to be spared, if possible, 
listening to so painful a subject, and was strongly opposed to calling 
ladies to testify. 

[Some conversation ensued, which resulted in waiving the topic] 

Witness. I have been to the meeting-house, since the political 
sermon, expecting some one else to preach, but finding Mr. Pierpont 
there, returned back. My family having gone into the meeting, did 
not go out. I have never gone out after once entering. 

Mr. Boyd proposed certain votes, October 7th, 1839. I never ad- 
vanced that they came from Mr. Pierpont, until it came out in print 
from Mr. Pierpont that they were proposed by himself through a 
friend. [Here are the Preamble and Votes of Mr. Boyd, as given:] 

Mr. James Boyd addressed the meeting, and said he had in his 
hand a set of votes, which had been prepared, corresponding in 
their tenor with a suggestion contained in the letter of Mr. Pier- 
pont. These he said he brought forward, not so much from any 
desire on the part of the friends of Mr. Pierpont that they should 
be passed, as from that of showing a willingness on their part to 
join the opposition in adopting the only measure by which the diffi- 
culty could be brought to a close, unless the opposition should 
fall into a minority. If these votes were taken up by the opposi- 
tion, he would promise the support of a sufficient number of the 
friends of Mr. Pierpont, to carry the measure proposed by them 
into operation. The following preamble and votes were then sub- 
mitted. 

" Whereas, in our present controversy with our Pastor, Rev. 
John Pierpont, we have joined issue with him, upon the essential 
question between us; he, in his last Letter to us, in effect affirm- 
ing that Temperance is, by way of eminence, the " exciting top- 
ic," his zeal in the cause of which, and his efforts for its ad- 
vancement, constitute " the head and front, of 'his offending ," and 
we, in the Preamble to our last vote upon that Letter, denying 
this; — and, 

" Whereas, it is absolutely due to the character of both the par- 
ties to this controversy, that this issue should be settled by some 
common and competent tribunal, in presence of this christian 
community, and for the informatien and admonition of other 
churches, and of coming times, — therefore, 

<c Voted, That a committee of be raised by this Society, 

and clothed with full power to agree with our Pastor, upon a mu- 
tual council, before which this issue shall by them be carried, and 
by which it shall be settled. 

" Voted, That the decision of that tribunal shall be conclusive, 
final, and forever binding upon both parties, upon the following 
points, namely: 



128 



1 . Whether what our Pastor has affirmed, and what we have 
denied, as aforesaid, is true. 

"2. If the Pastor's course, in relation to the temperance cause 
be not, as in his Letter, he says it is, " the main spring of our 
movement against him." — What is? 

"3. Whether, by reason of any thing that he has done, or 
left undone, in relation to that cause, or any other cause, ' the 
connexion between him and this Society ought to be dissolved.' — 
And, 

" 4. If, for any cause whatever, that connexion ought to be 
dissolved, what are the terms and conditions upon which a disso- 
lution shall take place." 

Washburn wanted to know if the witness could testify that this 
pamphlet came from Mr. Pierpont, or his friends, with his knowledge 
and consent. The witness said, Mr. Richards Child told him so. — 
Considerable discussion here ensued on the subject of the rule as to 
hearsay evidence, by which the Council should be governed. 

Washburn freely admitted this particular fact to be as stated. 

Witness. I have here a list of persons supposed by me to have 
left the Society from dissatisfaction with Mr. Pierpont; I can't an- 
swer for every name. The list runs through, say fifteen years. They 
are all male adults, all worshippers, and most, but not all, proprie- 
tors here. I should think that over fifty on this list, to my personal 
knowledge, left from that cause. I will make a list of those names 
and furnish to the counsel for the respondent. 
At a subsequent examination of this witness, 

Mr. Lothrop inquired if Mr. Pierpont's salary was continued 
during his absence to Europe, and if any deduction was made for 
the services of the pulpit in his absence? 

Mr. Crane replied that a vote passed for leave of absence a year; 
a proposal to supply the pulpit in his absence was offered, but objected 
to. His friends then set up a subscription to supply the desk and 
furnish him means to go. Two evenings before he went, I called on 
him and asked how much he wanted, to make up the $2000, which 
it was understood he required. Mr. Pierpont figured it up, and I 
understood that he had received $1650; for, said he, I require $350. 
I told him if he would come to my store the next day, I would give 
him a check. He came, and I gave him a check for $350, and took 
his receipt for it, and have it now. That was before any subscription 
was raised to supply the desk; $800 was raised for that purpose; for- 
ty dollars remained on Mr. Pierpont's return from Europe, and that 
I paid over to him. Mr. Pierpont had nothing to do with supplying 
the pulpit in his absence, and drew his whole salary, besides the con- 
tribtions. 

Charles Babbit of Taunton sworn. I am a watch-maker and jew- 
eller, — I was called upon in 1829, or 1830, to make a steel hone or 
tablet, by Mr. Sproat of Taunton. He wanted me to make it like 
one he brought with him. I made it. It was a new invention to me. 
Mr. Sproat said the hone he brought belonged to Mr. Pierpont. It 
was about three inches long, about as broad as my finger, flat on one 
side and half round on the other. I have made a great many since, 
with an improvement. 



129 



I made several for my neighbours and afterwards put it into the 
market. I was not cautioned against making it public. Mr. Pier- 
pont was at my shop and saw the hones after that. He thought I 
had made an improvement and wanted me to make one for him. — 
Said he wanted it for a friend and paid for it. I made four or five 
after that. I made a number and gave to Mr. Ashton of Boston, to 
sell. They were called Mr. Pierpont's hone by Mr. Ashton. Does 
not know that they were so advertised. 

Ashton wanted to know if 1 sold them as my invention. I told 
him how I first got that kind of hone and that I had improved it. — 
Ashton and Mr. Win. Taylor sold them in Boston. Mr. Pierpont 
once told me that he got it from one he saw in the possession of Dea- 
con William Brown. He said he borrowed one of Dea. Brown, of 
a different shape to fit a dressing case. The steel is nothing, other 
metals will answer, excepting that steel is stifFer. The paste is what 
gives the cut. I had before, used steel for polishing with a polishing 
powder. There is a secret in the paste applied to the steel hone. 

Mr. Pierpont is the first man that I ever saw apply that paste for 
that purpose. The first knowledge I had of it, was from Mr. Pier- 
pont, after I made the hones for Sproat. There was paste used for 
the first hones I made. Mr. Pierpont afterwards shewed me some 
of his own, and I found it to be much better. - 1 think the first sent to 
Ashton's for sale, had Pierpont's paste. The steel is only the bed, 
the paste gives the cut. Turkey oil stone was in the composition of 
the old paste. I took the idea of using turkey oil stone from the 
one shewn me by Sproat. The hone was put up in a sheath of wood 
laid over with a strap, and paste accompanied it. I made fourteen 
for my neighbours, — three of them were for a Mr. Hamilton. I 
don't know that Mr. Pierpont was aware of it. I learned from him 
the secret of the new paste. The metallic tablet, with paste for cut- 
ting, as used for sharpen^ razors, was new to me. It was called, 
" Cast-Steel Hone." 

Cross-examined. The power of the hone does not depend on the 
shape. I had used a similar thing before, for sharpening gravers, on 
the same principle. I have seen at Mr. Davis' in this city, hones 
imported from Germany, in which the crocus was used for the sharp- 
ening process. 

Dr. S. Jl. Bemis, sworn. I know the "cast-steel hone" — I first 
knew it in 1811. The article since known by that name was then 
invented by me. I considered it then my invention. I kept it a 
secret until 1821, when Deacon William Brown saw it accidentally, 
without, my intention that he should see it. He asked what it was, 
and I had to explain. He wanted to borrow it, to try his own razor 
apon. Upon his promise not to allow any one else to see it, I lent 
"it to him. It was my intention, at some time, to take a patent for it, 
uid this was the reason for keeping it, and wishing to keep it out of 
sight, lest it might become public, and thus my right be lost. Deacon 
Brown, having tried it, wished me, afterwards, to allow him to show 
it to a particular friend of his. I recalled to him my former conver- 
sation about the patent, and injunction of secresy. He told me that 
the friend was Mr. Pierpont, and upon the understanding that Mr. 
P. was to be informed that the hone must be kept secret, lest it be- 
come public in advance of my getting a patent, I consented. After 
that, Dea. Brown wanted me to allow him to let Mr. P. take it home 
17 



130 



and try it. To that I consented, under the old injunction of keeping 
it a secret. After Dec. 5th, 1821, my physician asked me to whom 
he should apply to get his lancets sharpened. I told him I could 
do it. This reminded me that my steel hone was not at home. I 
saw Dea. Brown, and he told me that Mr. P. would return it. It 
was sent, with a message that Mr. P. would call on me. Mr. P. 
did call on me, and told me that the reason he had kept it so long 
was, that he liked it so well, he was loath to part with it. I took 
this as a compliment. He said, he had been preparing a dressing 
case, which only wanted this to make it perfect. Mr. P. expressed 
a desire to have one made for himself, and I spoke of the danger to 
my interest, if it should become known. He said, it need not, and 
would not be known — that my interest should be safe. Mr. P. said, 
I understand you claim this as your invention. 1 said, yes. I un- 
derstood, that it should not be made known to any person. I told 
him and Dea. Brown, that the oil stone dust was the best material to 
use as paste. It is the best material now used; pulverized hone is 
used sometimes. The steel blocks, imported from Germany, are 
modern, compared with my invention in 1811. I had heard, when I 
was a boy, that copper might be used for the same purpose, with 
crocus martus. When I t dd Mr. P. that this was my invention, he 
made no contradiction to the statement. I told him, I had no objec- 
tion to his using the steel hone, if it would not injure my right to a 
patent. He thanked me; wanted to know how he should get one. I 
directed him to go to Davis' or Davis & Brown's, and get a cast- 
steel file annealed, and have it made from that. I thought he would 
make the hone himself, knowing his mechanical taste, though I did 
not make any restriction as to employing a mechanic. I only said, 
generally, that no one must know the use to be made of the steel, 
when prepared. About a week after that, Mr. P. came to me with 
a cylindrical razor strop, which he called his invention, with the 
steel hone inserted. 

I claimed no invention of the paste. The paste does the sharpen- 
ing, the particles being held to the surface of the hone. My object 
was, the best material for a surface upon which to use the sharpen- 
ing paste or powders. I suppose the paste, which is called a secret, 
to be pulverized hone, a substance which I have tried, and found not 
so good as the oil stone. What I considered my invention was, 
finding out a better base on which to use the various kinds of polish- 
ing powders. He did not profess to me to claim any invention in 
the hone, but only in the strop, which was a convenient shape for a 
case. I told Mr. P. a plan of mine for a case which was so much 
resembled by those cases made by Mr. Babbit, afterward, that I 
thought Mr. P. might have communicated the plan to him. The 
reason of my keeping the hone a secret so long was, that I was then 
a poor boy, getting into miserable health, didn't know as I should 
ever get any better, and only wanted, that any little interest I might 
have should be safe, in case the time should come when it might do 
me some good. I first saw the hones for sale at Ashton's, in Jan- 
uarv, 1831. I then had four dozen of hones on hand ready to be fin- 
ished; and when I saw the article for sale at Ashton's, he said it was 
an invention of Mr. Pierpont's. It had a strop, the shape of which 
was flat. I spoke to Deacon Brown, and Dea. Brown told me that 
Mr. Pierpont would call and see me about it. He never did, nor did 



I3i 



I ever call to see him ; for I thought that if he had done wrong, he 
should have the chance of calling on me to explain. I had said 
plainly that the hone was not his invention. The manner of the 
mounting was also that which I described to Mr. P. The hone was 
not shaped right, being round, which was objectionable. All that 
constituted my peculiar invention in the hone lent to Dea. Brown, 
was in the hones for sale at Ashton ? s. 

Mr. P. between 1821 and 1831, used frequently to call on me. He 
never did after 1831. 

Upon my first seeing the article for sale at Ashton's, I told him 
that it was my invention, and said that Mr. P. had broken his en- 
gagement with me; and when I mentioned it to Dea. Brown, and he 
told me that Mr. P. would call and explain it, I was sorry that I had 
said so to Ashton; I was sorry that he had seen that such a thing 
could move me at all. Mr. P. never called to explain it. 

Nothing had been ever said by me to Mr. P. as to the time when 
I meant to get a patent. I supposed it would be a good while. My 
health was bad, and I was busy in my other matters. Ashton told 
me that the things i saw there were Mr. Pierpont's invention. I 
don't know that they were ever advertised as such. I used often to 
hear of them, as " Pierpont's steel-hones." Babbitt's name was on 
them, as maker, not inventor. I don't know that Mr. Pierpont ever 
heard that the hones at Ashton's were called his invention, except 
from Dea. Brown's statement to me. I never heard that Mr. Pier- 
pont, at any time, publicly disclaimed its being his invention. Some 
persons said, that Mr. Pierpont claimed it as such. 

On the 19th of January, 1832, Mr. Low introduced Mr. Babbitt to 
me. Babbitt told me that he was glad to find the real inventor of the 
{< steel hone," as other persons pretended to have made the inven- 
tion, and threatened to prosecute him as an invader of their rights. 
At a subsequent call on me, he said Mr. Pierpont does you justice 
now, by admitting it to be your invention; but he did not do so pub- 
licly. 

Charles Babbitt, recalled, by Washburn. The form of the hone 
shown me by Sproat, was cylindrical. The form I adopted was the 
one for sale at Ashton's. I never received any suggestion from Mr. 
P. as to the form of the strop. I have been a mechanic for thirty-eight 
years. The use of a paste on a metallic surface, for grinding, was 
earlj' known to me. 

I so used it for sharpening gravers, twenty-five or thirty years ago. 
I had never known it used for sharpening knives or razors until I 
saw the hone shown me by Sproat. I think the main novelty of the 
whole affair to consist, in the paste, which I now apply to it. Steel 
affords a bed for the paste superior to any other metal. 

Friday Morning, July 9th, 1841. 
After prayer and the reading of the journal, 

Dr. Bemis was further cross-examined by Washburn. I have had 
two conversations with Mr. Pierpont, on the subject of the secrecy 
under which I wished the steel-hone kept — one, when he called to ex- 
plain why he kept it so long, and one, when he called to show me 
the strop and hone. 

This was in 1821. What makes me remember that the subject 
was spoken of by me, is the interest which I felt in the matter. I 
don't state words precisely, always, but the substance. I remember 



132 



that he told .'me, that he had been getting up a dressing case, and 
wanted the steel-hone to make it perfect. I told him at that time, 
that I desired not to have the thing in any way made public — that I 
had been, so far, prevented by my ill-health and other circumstan- 
ces, from getting a patent. He wanted me to let him have the use 
of one, to which I replied, that I had no objection, if it would not 
injure my interest. He thanked me, and wanted to know how he 
could get one. I told him I could not make it, and did not want to 
have any made, but told him how he could get one made. I suppo- 
sed that his mechanical genius would enable him to make one him- 
self. I didn't prohibit him from going to a mechanic, nor did I give 
him leave to go. I have not stated that I did either, in my examina- 
tion, yesterday. Mr. Pierpont had frequency made friendly calls, 
and asked me how my health was. In the early part of my dental 
practice, he used to call to get operations for himself and family. 
My object in getting a patent, was for the steel-hone, as a new appli- 
cation of an old principle — that is, the combination of the steel-hone 
and paste, in the application of any polishing powder to a soft steel- 
bed. I never called on Mr. Pierpont to aid me in getting a patent. 
The invention was complete in 1811. The four dozen, in a partial 
state of manufacture, were to be made into hones for sale, when I 
should have got a patent. I suppose getting a patent would not take 
much time. I did not, up to 1828, feel able and at leisure to get a 
patent. I did not wish to take my time from my regular business, 
upon which I depended for a living. The only steel hone I had was 
the one I lent to Dea. Brown. Since I found my hone was made 
public, I have made no effort to get a patent. I thought that it 
would be useless to try. I have always been waiting for Mr. Pier- 
pont to make to me an explanation why he broke his engagement, 
which I should have valued more than any patent. It was Jan. 
1831, that I saw the hones for sale at Ashton's. Low, called with 
Babbit, in Jan. 1832, and I saw Babbit again 1834. He then told 
me that he made but a few of them, that there were cheap imitations 
in the market. I told Babbit it was a pity that Mr. Pierpont had not 
agreed to my proposition to him, which was a proposal about getting 
a patent, and manufacturing hones. This was made through Dea. 
Brown. I did it in a friendly manner and feeling to Mr. Pierpont, 
for I then felt, on the strength of Dea. Brown's assurance, that Mr. 
Pierpont meant no wrong. Since Jan. 1831, I have never had any 
conversation with Mr. Pierpont. I have met him, but he always 
seemed not to know me ; he appeared to be looking the other way, 
I did not bow. I long hoped for an explanation, and believed that 
one would take place, and was led to think that Mr. Pierpont meant 
no wrong. A gentleman called on me, as late as Feb. 6th, 1836, 
professing to be a friend of Mr. Pierpont and of myself. It was 
Dea. Samuel May. He sent me a note, wishing to see me on a sub- 
ject not professional. [Witness read a supposed copy of the note.] 
As near as I can recollect, Dea. May said, he had heard some earnest 
conversation between some ladies, relative to the steel hone, and that 
he requested them to suspend their opinion until he could make in- 
quiry. 1 gave him the whole history of it. I told him, in reply to 
his question, that I had never looked at Mr. Pierpont's connection 
with dollars and cents in the transaction. He told me Mr. Pierpont 
was away from the city, and would clear it up on his return. 1 have 



133 



never been a member of Hollis Street Society. I don't know who 
the Proprietors are of Hollis Street Church. I don't belong to any 
religious Society. I do believe most firmly in a state of future re- 
wards and punishments. 

[A round razor strop was shown to the witness. He thonght it 
was not the one shown him by Mr. Pierpont, but was like it. A flat 
strop was shown him, and he thought it looked like those for sale at 
Ashton's.] 

I think Mr. Pierpont's strop was in existence before he ever saw 
the steel hone. The hone I lent Dea. Brown was made sometime 
between 1811 and 1815. It is well known that metallic surfaces 
have been used for grinding upon with the various pastes. Lenses 
were ground on such surfaces. I considered my invention to be the 
new application of the old polishing powders. The patent. I expect- 
ed sometime to apply for, was for the hone simply, just as it existed 
on the first minute of its invention, with such improvements as 
might be suggested by my fancy; not any in the principle of the 
thing. 

John Redman, was called. He objected to taking the oath, be- 
cause the Council were not under oath. He intimated, without be- 
ing interrogated, that he did not believe he was to be called to 
account in another world and punished there for what he said here. 
One of the Council asked if he believed in a God; he replied, the 
gentleman must define what he means by God, the gentleman's ideas 

and views . He was here withdrawn by Mr. Dexter. 

Moses Everett, sworn. I have been a member ef the Hollis Street 
Society, for about thirty nine years. During the first part of my wor- 
shipping here, I was not a proprietor and attended few meetings, but 
generally, before the late controversy, the Society have been very 
unanimous. I was present at the meeting on the 10th September, 
1838, when a Committee was chosen to wait on Mr. Pierpont. The 
great trouble with the people was his active attention to subjects 
of legislation, viz: — the " Poor Debtor Law, License Laws, &c." — 
He bore down hard on those opposed to it. I didn't hear him 
preach particularly on slavery. There was a very general com- 
plaint of what he was doing out of the desk, neglecting his duty, 
&c. Mr. Pierpont said something about the action of other min- 
isters in Boston, on these subjects. It was at a meeting at my 
house, got up by some of Mr Pierpont's friends, to enable him to 
meet some, who were dissatisfied. Affairs were there talked over in 
free conversation. It ended in no reconciliation. It was in Septem- 
ber, 1838, some individual proposed that if he would leave the Society, 
they would guarantee to him one year's salary, — only one of his 
friends was there, — five or six of his opponents. They told him, that 
they thought a majority of the Parish . were opposed to him. Mr. 
Pierpont could not believe it. 

I was present when Mr. Pierpont gave out his rule he would read 
no notice, unless sanctioned by the Committee. When the Abolition 
notice was read, after Mr. Pierpont made that rule, it was handed to 
me. I gave no opinion as one of the Committee about its being read. 
Another member refused to consent. 

Cross-examined. I told the sexton when he informed me it was an 
abolition notice, I would have nothing to do with it. At the meeting 



134 



of the Committee, we decided that the subject of reading notices, 
was not for us to decide. The member who refused consenting, was 
Isaac Parker — I didn't hear his refusal. John D. Williams, Samuel 
Bradlee, Richards Child, Daniel Weld, Henry Smith, and James 
Boyd were present at the meeting at my house. One of the topics 
of conversation was the temperance question. Bradlee and Smith, 
had, I believe, never been engaged in the liquor business. Weld 
had been before. Three others were there, Messrs. Williams and 
Weld offered the year's salary. I don't remember how long it was 
after he made the rule against reading unauthorized notices, that he 
did read the abolition notice; perhaps, five or six months, I called 
at Mr. Pierpont's house, with Mr. Parker, to inform him that the 
Committee would take no responsibility on the subject and we left it 
just as it was before any rule was made by Mr. Pierpont. This was 
before the abolition notice was read. Believes it has been common to 
read such notices from their pulpit. Cannot say positively what has 
been the usage of the church with respect to notices. I don't remem- 
ber any action had at the Proprietor's meetings against Mr. Pierpont 
till 1838. Some one had before, moved a deduction of salary. Till 
1838, the meetings were very harmonious. Some complaint had been 
made that his sermons were not as good as forma! \y, after he began 
upon exciting topics, as before. I thought so. This conversation 
has been general since 1838. I don't know whether, he then began 
to neglect visiting. He never visited me much, — I have heard com- 
plaints of neglect. Mr. Pierpont never has been a favorite preacher 
of mine from the beginning, and he began to be more uninteresting to 
me after he preached on the poor debtor's law and more so, as he 
went upon other foreign subjects. I never knew him to preach on 
Phrenology, if he did, I didn't understand it. Health in my family 
has been bad. I have lost two daughters by consumption during Mr. 
Pierpont's ministry. My wife has said recently Mr. P. did not see 
the first daughter when she was sick, — I know he did see the other, 
two or three times. 1 found no fault about it, nor did I charge him 
with neglect. I think he called at the house and some others of the 
family. During the day, I am generally absent from home. It was 
understood that the difficulties would be brought up at the Proprie- 
tor's meeting in 1839. I know that a proxy to represent a pew 
owned out of the State, was at one time in the hands of the oppo- 
nents, and again in the hands of friends. I don't remember whether 
I had a note after the death of my first daughter. There was never 
any complaint in my family that Mr. P. neglected us. There has 
always been some objection to Mr. P., ever since his preaching on 
the poor debtor's law. 

Henry Smith, sworn. I have been a worshipper here for thirty 
years. I was at the Proprietor's meeting of 10th September 1838. 
Most of the complaints were from gentlemen who were distillers and 
venders of ardent spirits. The ground of their complaint was his 
interfering in their business, and attending too much to the Laws. — 
It was reported that he had called them legal felons. They most 
complained of his manner of conducting the controversy, as rough 
and not conciliating. I never was concerned in it. 1 complained of 
his theory of moral responsibility. I now have on my mind what he 
said at Mr. Everett's, — the object of that meeting was friendly and 
for conciliation. We proposed to him to change his course about 



135 



lecturing abroad. He said he should never give it up. Something 
was said about other ministers in Boston. Mr. Pierpont said that 
they had " chains upon them, not iron chains." I understood that he 
meant that they had not moral courage enough to speak their minds. 

Some persons were opposed to Mr, Pierpont, because they thought 
certain charges, other than the temperance complaints, were true. — 
1 don't remember his preaching, in the pulpit, his theory of moral 
responsibility. At the meeting at Mr. Everett's, the temperance 
question was all the question, that I remember to have been discuss- 
ed. I did not object to his friendship to temperance. I thought his 
views of moral responsibility were unsound. The doctrine was so 
urged by him as to involve charges against the moral character of 
others. I never knew him to urge the theory in preaching. I have 
heard complaint, of his language in the pulpit; for example his talk- 
ing of the price courtezan's charged for their favors, and I think some 
other complaints. I recollect his preaching on the subject of im- 
prisonment for debt. People thought it to be none of his business. 
In one sermon, he spoke of the imprisonment of a poor man with a 
sick wife, and a large family of children, and the creditor set right 
under him. He dealt out a pretty severe dose, — I believe the credi- 
tor thought it to be severe. I thought he might have done more good 
by a kinder manner. I have heard that there were no particular 
features of oppression in that case. I have heard the sermon spoken 
of often. From what I knew of the case I don't think it justified so 
public an attack, perhaps it deserved a rebuke. I thought he was 
intending to be personal at the time, and was stating a particular 
case. I have heard he did not state the facts of the leniency of the 
creditor, correctly. I knew a Mr. Williard, a butcher in Boylston 
market, — I didn't know that he was intemperate. I have heard that 
a publication about him was attributed to Mr. Pierpont. 

I think a motion at some former time has been made by Winsor 
Fay about reducing salary. I think he was not then a worshipper in 
this Society. I don't remember that it was denied in the pulpit that 
Mr. Pierpont called liquor makers and venders, felons. 

The debtor before alluded to, was a half brother of my wife's 
father. His wife died, in child-birth, and I beard that he was in 
jail at the time for debt. It was cold weather. He had seven chil- 
dren, young, and principally daughters under seventeen years old, 1 
should think. I have understood that the creditor offered him lib- 
erty to go and see his wife, if he would give security to return, and 
he refused. I attended the meeting at Mr. Everett's, in 1838, as his 
friend. If I were to vote now, on the question whether he should 
be settled as a minister, I should vote for him if some of his views 
were changed. My only objection to him is, his view of moral re- 
sponsibility. I consider that his opinion on that subject runs out 
into injurious practical consequences. I have not heard any other 
member of the Parish take my view of it. I have no complaint 
against Mr. Pierpont, in the performance of his parochial duties. I 
know nothing against his character for moral honesty. His preach- 
ing against intemperance was the ground of the opposition, but the 
manner the thing on which it was based, his making the distillers 
and venders responsible for the evil. 

Joseph Hay, sworn. When Mr. Pierpont first became our Pastor, 
all was harmony; he was generally admired. I was a worshipper 



136 



here, was opposed to him, not from any thing I knew, but because 
he had been a mechanic and a lawyer. I was afterwards his great 
admirer. My present objection is, that he interests himself too 
much in foreign subjects; — has too much levity in the pulpit, &c. 
Gradual compiaints have grown up. For ten years, he has not 
tried to influence his people's opinions by gentle means. He is 
harsh to them and uncharitable. Last Sabbath, he offended my opin- 
ions, by advocating the doctrines in Theodore Parker's sermon. I 
was on the Committee of Sept. 1838. There was great harmony be- 
tween the Committee and Mr. Pierpont. After several meetings, he 
was asked to write a letter. In the letter he wrote, he said some 
things which he has said in letters since, or implied; was an evasive 
answer. We, at that time, were endeavoring to conciliate all par- 
ties. I believe he spoke his true feelings in the letter. The part of 
the letter I refer to, was his promising to attend more to duty, if he 
had neglected it, and the fact that Mr. Pierpont gave and intended 
to give an evasive answer in that letter, first destroyed my confi- 
dence in him. Intemperance, and other subjects were then discussed. 
I have no fault to find personally, except his harsh and unkind man- 
ner, to persons opposed to him. In this respect, see his letters to 
his opponents. I think though, his sermons are as good as hereto- 
fore. I don't ever expect to hear so satisfactory a minister in his 
sermons as Mr. P. used to be ten years ago. He is now what I call a 
philosophical preacher, and not evangelical, like Henry Ware. He 
is less useful and practical, in my judgment, than formerly. Many 
of his old friends have left him. His offences against delicacy were 
few and far between. The courtezan sermon, was, aside from that 
subject, very beautiful. A more objectionable sermon was one on 
the celibacy of catholic clergymen. As to Parker's sermon, Mr. 
Pierpont said he objected to some things, but he did not specify to 
what he objected. I remember Mr. Pierpont's preaching on some 
such subjects as the sins that so easily beset us. He sometimes 
draws illustrations from things in bad taste. I think it an injury, as 
not being the most efficient way of preaching. He sometime ago 
preached a most splendid sermon on the Horticultural Exhibition. 
In the afternoon, he selected a most unfortunate text, being from Sol- 
omon's songs. I call it unfortunate for my family, because I never 
have my children read in Solomon's songs. I have nothing to say 
against Mr. Pierpont's purity of mind — I account for it differently. 

I object to the sermon about the Sins of Authors, because I cannot 
see any reason for his marring his sermon by telling the people 
about the particulars of a certain vice. It was like a beautiful pic- 
ture with a daub upon it. I worship here now, but \ think he has 
done our Society great injury, by causing dissentions, &e. during the 
last four years, and think there has been ground for dissatisfaction in 
the Pastor's course. I think it is the people's fault, if they complain 
that the Pastor did not visit them. If there are any little unpleasant 
things to prevent intercourse, they ought to overlook it. The at- 
tendance here in number is very small. They have much fallen off. 
It is, however, I am sorry to say, not fashionable to go to meeting in 
the afternoon. For the last two years, my votes have been against 
Mr. Pierpont. I was opposed to this Council, because, as an Unita- 
rian Church, we ought not. to recognize ecclesiastical authority. I 
thought he ought to go away, when the mnjority of the Proprietors 



137 



were against him. I stay at this meeting, because I am located here, 
and am an old attendant on this church. Moreover, I don't get my 
religion from the minister, but try to get something to make me bet- 
ter, and to cull out of what is said, such things as will do me good. 

Many of the present worshippers are new. The proprietors wont 
sell their pews, I wouldn't sell mine for $1000. Of the actual wor- 
shippers who own pews, a majority are opposed to Mr. Pierpont. — 
Perhaps, they are nearly half and half. If Mr. Pierpont should 
send in his resignation, I can't answer for the rapidity with which the 
Society would be built up. Some of his friends have said, if we got 
Mr. P. away, it wouldn't be easy to settle another minister. The 
sooner, however, he goes away, the sooner we shall begin to build 
up. The obstinacy, which would say, " Mr. Pierpont or nobody," 
rests, I believe, within half a dozen. Both parties may have been 
wrong, but I think the original cause of our trouble is Mr. Pierpont. 
He seems to disregard the feelings of his parishioners, to preach at 
people, and on the whole, I think the people have not taken groundless 
exceptions. If the old pew holders who oppose Mr. Pierpont, would 
sell out, I think the church would be built up. This is a grand church 
and the parties of which Mr. Pierpont seems the general champion, 
Temperance and Abolition, which are now so much increasing, would 
fill it up probably. But human nature has not come to that perfec- 
tion which would enable three fourths to give to one fourth. 

The Council adjourned until Monday the 12th at 9 o'clock. 

Monday Morning, July 12, 1841. 
Prayer. — Journal read by the Scribe. 

[Before proceeding, the Moderator remarked, that as a general 
rule it seemed advisable, and he had been requested by some of the 
brethren so to suggest, that the members of the Council should not 
put any questions to a witness pending his examination in chief, 
and the Cross-examination, but reserve their interrogatories until 
after, excepting in such cases as might seem to require a different 
course, for purposes of explanation, and the like.] 

Joseph Hay, further examined by Washburn. The parochial visits of 
Mr Pierpont have always been satisfactory to me, and I have had a chance 
of observing his course. Many [or some] of the Proprietors who have 
gone elsewhere to meeting-, leave a part of their families to attend Hollis 
Street Church, yet I cannot alter my statement of Saturday, for I really 
think, that of all who usually attend Hollis Street Church, now, one half 
are rather opposed to Mr Pierpont 

I don't mean to say, that Mr Pierpont, in preaching, ever made a direct 
allusion to a member, by calling him by name. He did refer to Mr Fay's 
vessel carrying out rum to Smyrna. Mr Fay had then left the Society I 
think, though I believe his daughter comes here now sometimes. I don't 
remember when it was, Mr Fay left. I think it was since Mr Motte's 
church was built. [Witness inferred it to be so, from his recollection of 
some misunderstanding with Mr Fay about taxes, which were paid by 
Mr Fay and settled.] The allusion to Mr Fay was, substantially, that the 
vessel which carried out the word of God (i. e. Missionaries) carried out 
something much worse in the form of Boston Brandy. I don't remember 
that he gave the name of the vessel. A majority were in fact opposed to 



I3S 



him, on the reception of his first letter to the Proprietors. The vote on 
the question of receiving the Committee's report, was in his favor. The 
first majority against him was, I think, in October, 1839. I had nothing 
to do with it, and at the time knew only by hearsay, of the raising money, 
on the part of Mr Pierpont's opponents to buy up pews. 

When I speak of Mr Pierpont's evasive answer, I mean that it has been 
shown by him, in one of his subsequent letters, that he meant to be evasive. 
I did not so consider it, when I received it, but thought it plain and distinct. 
I think it was " a dilatory plea," that he styled it. 

[The witness here wished to explain an item of his yesterday's 
testimony, given in answer to a question from Rev. Mr Waterston. 
He said, that he did not think the House would, if left to Mr Pier- 
pont and his friends, be filled by persons who would buy the pews 
and pay the taxes. Persons might fill the seats- Some pews were 
sold a few years ago for the taxes and they went for a mere song t . 
Since this controversy has been high, both parties have bought pews 
for the sake of the votes.] 

Witness, in answer to Washburn. I don't know that Mr Pierpont's 
friends have bought pews for that purpose, but I think Deacon May, or his 
agent, has I don't know of any offers to hire seats which have been re- 
fused. I think there are plenty of pews or seats which might be hired. 

As to Mr Parker's Sermon, I know him to be a fine man ; my only ob- 
jection is to his doctrine. Mr Pierpont endorsed the whole sermon, sav- 
ing a few exceptions, but he did not state what he did except to. It 
seemed like an unqualified approval. 

[Mr Gannett objected to going into such inquiries because they 
relate only to subjects not embraced in the charge which the Coun- 
cil were to try. 

Washburn said, that this matter was introduced on the other 
side, and that there was danger of the effect it would have on his 
client, if it should go unexplained. He merely wanted to get the 
full explanation from the witness. 

Rand thought the examination to be proper. It would be 
allowed by a Court. He contended that Mr Pierpont's preaching 
could be proved not to be evangelical, it was right under these pres- 
ent charges to do so. 

The Moderator thought the Pastor's preaching, as to doctrine, to 
be subject to their examination. 

Mr Gannett said the difficulty was to introduce such subjects 
where the " Grounds of Complaint" do not cover them. The 
Pastor's manner in preaching is made a subject by specification, 
but that does not cover doctrine. 

Rand thought a proper construction of the " Grounds of 
Complaint" would show this subject to be within the specifications. 

Washburn had no belief that doctrine was an open question 
at all, by the present" Grounds of Complaint," but he wished only 
to get an explanation from the witness, which would give a clear- 
er and better understanding of what the witness said yesterday 
when on this subject.] 



139 



Witness, in answer to Mr Pierpont I mean to say, that you told us, 
your objections were to a very few lines. 

In answer to Washburn. I have nothing to do with a tavern in Rox- 
bury. It is owned by my mother. I pay her the money for the rent, and 
I receive it. It gives me pleasure to do that for her, and a great deal 
more, I have the means and shall do it. I know nothing against Mr 
Pierpont's morals, but I find somethings in his writings, which I do 
not understand. 

Samuel Bradley, called by Proprietors, and sworn. 

[Mr Pierpont asked if the other side really meant to use that 
witness ? He would not have brought him upon the stand, though 
he might prove some things by him to his own advantage, better 
than any one else in the world. If the other side examined him, 
he and his counsel must Cross-examine, and in doing so the feel- 
ings of the witness would be harrowed up as no man's ought to be. 
He hoped he might not be put to certify at all. 

Mr Bradlee said he was totally unconscious of what the Rev. 
Mr Pierpont alluded to, he was called to testify to the conversation 
at the meeting at Mr Everett's, perhaps he would object to swear- 
ing upon any other subject. The examination then proceeded.] 

Witness. I went to the meeting at Mr Everett's hoping that harmony 
might be restored. There were present beside Mr Pierpont and myself, 
Messrs. Smith, Boyd, Weld, Williams, Child and Everett Mr Williams 
opened the conversation. He advised Mr Pierpont to leave. He would 
guarantee to him twelve months' salary. The parish would give six 
months' salary after leaving, and he Mr W. would guarantee him the 
rest. I had not been a worshipper there for one year an half. Mr Pier- 
pont asked the opinion of each person present. I told him, that a year 
before I didn't believe the parish wanted him to leave, but was afraid it 
become different. I was willing for him to preach temperance, if he would 
do it temperately. Mr Pierpont said, he thought the gentlemen were mis- 
taken, though honestly ; it being his opinion, that he was more popular 
than ever. He remarked upon his having had some difficulty once, for 
his having preached upon the poor Debtor law, but should preach the 
truth, let it be on whom it would. I told him I thought his zeal had mis- 
led him as to the circumstances of the case of the imprisoned debtor of whom 
he spoke in the pulpit ; and that I did not believe Mr Wyman deserved 
all that he, Mr Pierpont, said of him. He replied, giving a relative of 
Mr Wyman as his informant. I told him, I had heard a different account 
of the matter ; to which, he answered that he never before heard his ver- 
sion of it contradicted. All the gentlemen present agree that Mr Pier- 
pont was mistaken. I only know the facts of that case by hearsay. The 
creditor was a Mr Wyman, the debtor was a Mr Gore, and Hon. J. T. 
Austin was the creditor's attorney. Mr Pierpont told us, that he had 
spoken what he supposed to be the truth. Said he should speak and cry- 
out against intemperance, as long as he had breath, and if a man died by 
drinking, he thought the maker and vender of liquor guilty of his death. 
Mr Smith asked him, if a man made an instrument and another should 
kill himself with it, would the maker be guilty ? He replied yes, 
if the instrument was made for such a purpose. He insisted that he had 
done his duty, and this was in reply to Mr Williams, who told him he 
might make a conditional answer to them. I asked him why his brother 



140 



clergymen did not find their duties leading them into trouble. He said, 
" they have chains upon their necks, not iron chains." I told him that 
I understood him. 1 formerly attended upon his preaching, and belonged 
to Hollis Street Church, and attended meeting there constantly, about 
fortyfive years in all. It was formerly a very harmonious Society. For 
a year or two Mr Pierpont was beloved, greatly, by all. This peace became 
occasionally interrupted. His feelings were very ardent. Every thing, 
however, was settled by him very amicably in the last Sermon he preached 
before going to Europe. In that Sermon he told us, that he had been 
pursuing what he had thought to be his duty. The admonition of his 
friends and his own physical debility told him his mistake. If God spared 
his life, on his return, he should devote himself to his people. I repeated 
this to him at the meeting at Mr Everett's. All but one gentleman un- 
derstood these words as I did. Mr Pierpont said, it was absurd. No 
minister could devote himself the whole time to his own people. 

I left the Society in 1838. I declined to say more about it, than that 
there was something in the manner of his preaching displeasing to me. 
A part of my family attended, I think, until fall. This was for tempo- 
rary convenience as to seats, my family being very large. I told Mr Pier- 
pont that it required very little to settle his difficulties, for his people 
were not quarrelsome. He used to bring into the pulpit the works of the 
weak ; would use expressions offensive to some, and seemed rather to 
irritate than reconcile. 

This was more in his apparent feelings than actual expressions. I am 
speaking now of the winter of 1838. I do not know that people used to 
charge him with neglect of parochial duty. There was some talk about 
his secular pursuits, though I am not aware that they were a subject of 
complaint. 

He would at one time use words, or make a remark, offensive to one 
person, then again, at some other time, another person would be offended. 
He told me he could not conciliate his people : he thought the trouble was 
his activity in the Temperance reform. I told him that it was not in his 
matter but his manner. 

Cross-Examined. — I do not know of his lecturing or preaching on Tem- 
perance from the fall of 1838 to that of 1839. I think he used to speak 
of it incidentally, but do not remember about those sermons, and will not 
try to recite from them, lest I might do him injustice. The reason why I 
can remember the words he used in the sermon before he went to Europe, 
and cannot remember the later ones, is, that the former produced so great 
an effect on the people. I think I have heard him but once since I left, 
but have been in the house, if I remember right, twice. I then heard the 
sermon on the " moral rule of political action." I have no complaint to 
make of that discourse. 

I have had sickness and death in my family, and Mr Pierpont did his 
duty to us kindly, attentively and faithfully. This was before he went to 
Europe. 

Mr Pierpont. — This is coming to the point to which I have referred 
as the matter I should be obliged to inquire into. This witness can give 
better testimony in favor of my discharge of private parochial duty, than 
any one else, but I will not follow up the inquiry. 

Mr Lothrop here inquired of Mr Pierpont whether he intended to in- 
timate anything adverse to the witness' personal character. 

Mr Pierpont. — Not at all ; far from it ; I mean to refer to cases in 
which I have been called upon to minister to the witness and his family, 
under circumstances of great domestic affliction. I remember, sir, when 



141 



that gentleman's son was brought home dead, killed by an accident. I 
remember too, when his murdered daughter lay dead in his house, and I 
had occasion to bring to him the consolations of the gospel. I thought of 
all this, sir, when I saw that witness take the stand, and I was anxious 
that if he testified to anything supposed to have an adverse bearing, he 
should also state all he knew of a favorable character; but I did not wish 
to be obliged to call the mind of the witness to subjects so painful as it 
might be necessary to do on a cross-examination. This was the reason 
why I did not wish Mr Bradlee to go upon the stand. I consider, 
however, that he has already done me justice in what he has already said. 
I will not question him further on the subject. 

[The cross-examination was continued on other points.] 

Witness then stated, that in 1839 he sold three pews to persons op- 
posed to Mr Pierpont. One was owned by the witness, the other two be- 
longed to estates of which he had the care. 

To the Moderator. — Mr Pierpont's course as to the temperance question 
was one of the many causes of complaint. I think Mr Everett told me 
that only thirteen persons in the society were in the liquor business at the 
time when these proceedings were commenced. 

To Washburn. — The statement made by Mr Pierpont to which I have 
referred as made in a sermon just before he went to Europe, was read, I 
think. [That is, not delivered ex-tempore.] 

To Rand. — I was told by the committee that I was needed here, and 
that it was my duty to come and testify. I came because I was thus re- 
quested, and did not wish to shrink from duty. 

William W. Clapp, Sworn. — Previous to his going to Europe, Mr 
Pierpont proposed to write me a series of letters, in his travels. The 
first conversation I had on the subject was with Mrs Pierpont at Saratoga 
Springs. We talked about Boston, the Hollis Street Society, and the 
subject of her husband's getting their consent to go to Europe. She said 
that if he went, I might expect a series of letters. I had a short conver- 
sation with Mr P. on the matter, before I left the springs. He said, when 
we parted, " We '11 talk of it again." While he was South, I wrote him 
a letter on parisli subjects, his going abroad, and getting the consent of 
the people, &c. He answered it. In September, after he returned home 
from the South, we had another conversation about letters from Europe. 
The proposal I made was, to give him five dollars a letter for a weekly 
correspondence to last one year. We both agreed that it was too small 
compensation, but I did not feel that I could afford more. A contract 
was finally made. 

[Here witness read the written agreement.] 

Having this day received the acceptance of Wm. W. Clapp for one 
hundred and twentyfive dollars payable in three months, and also his ac- 
ceptance for one hundred and twentyfive dollars, payable in six months 
from this date, — "for value received" — this witnesses that the considera- 
tion for those acceptances is the addressing to him of letters from abroad ; 
to average about one a week during my absence on a voyage to Europe. 
If less than that shall be written during my absence, or if I shall return 
before the two hundred and fifty dollars are exhausted, at the rate of five 
dollars each, then I am to repay to him the amount of such deficiency 
after my return. J. PIERPONT. 

Boston, 3d October, 1835. 



142 



Witness. — He told me that he -wanted all the money he could raise 
before his leaving, and accordingly I gave him two drafts ; one for $125, 
in 3 months, an another for $125 in 6 months, as pay for the letters. The 
drafts were negotiated here, and taken up by me. I gave notice, with his 
consent, in my paper, of the expected European correspondence from Mr 
Pierpont. I received nothing from him until five months after his depar- 
ture. It was a letter dated at Rome three months after he left Boston. 
Before the reception of that letter, I saw one received by his daughter, 
and wanted to publish it, and call that letter No. 1 of the correspondence. 
His wife would not consent. I published an extract from the letter dated 
at Rome. I have lost the original. A part of this letter was descriptive 
of Rome, &c. ; and so much of it as was of that character, I printed ; and 
all relating to his failure to write, &c, except the money matters. 

[The letter which the witness saw in the hand of the daughter 
was considered by him as fit for printing ; at least, all but some 
familiar parts easily separated from the rest. The letter contained 
a beautiful account of an English castle he had visited.] 

Witness. — In the letter to me from Rome I received a draft, for $250. 
It was in return for the money I had advanced. Mr Pierpont said in the 
letter that the short time he remained in a place, prevented him from being 
able to write, as he did not have time to take such notes as he wanted ; he 
also said he had been sick, and on the whole found that he could not 
write, as he had expected to. The letter promised a settlement of the in- 
terest at a future time, when he returned. I saw a lengthy poem of Mr 
Pierpont's published in the Knickerbocker, dated Feb. 14th, 1836, behind 
Cape Mattapan, called " A Sunday night at Sea." 

Cross-Examined. — Mr Pierpont had been considered unwell in the sum- 
mer of 1835. He seemed unwell at the Springs, but afterwards wrote me 
that he had recovered. In his letter from abroad, enclosing the draft, 
however, he said he had been sick eleven days in Paris. 

I had seen Mrs Pierpont several times, and told her that people com- 
plained of my not having the promised letters. She told me Mr Pierpont 
was taking notes ; that I must not mind what people said ; thought he 
would write the letters after he got home, if he did not before. She may 
have told me that his health prevented, though I do not remember it. The 
draft I received was at nine days' sight, and was paid. 

To the Moderator. — I do not know what amount of damage I suffered 
by his not writing. I know that I had new subscribers on the strength of 
my announcement of the forthcoming letters, and many persons blamed 
me, thinking that I made it prematurely. 

To Washburn. — I have never received any interest from Mr Pierpont 
on account of the money advanced to him. I never asked it of him, or 
exchanged a word with him on the subject of the letters since his return 
from Europe. 

[Some conversation here took place between Washburn and the 
Witness relative to the balance between Mr Pierpont and the Wit- 
ness. Mr Clapp thought it was in his own favor, while Mr Wash- 
burn estimated, that considering the reception of Mr Pierpont's re- 
turn draft before one of Mr Clapp's two drafts had matured, and 
adding pay for the letter written from Rome, there would be some- 
thing due back to Mr Pierpont. Mr Clapp thought he ought not 



143 



to be charged anything for a letter informing him that the contract 
must be annulled, and the conversation ended with Mr Washburn's 
remarking that any sum found to be due, Mr Pierpont was ready 
to pay.] 

Witness continued. The first time I saw Mrs Pierpont after I re- 
ceived the letter from Rome, I did not inform her of my having received 
this communication from her husband, or that he could not fulfil his con- 
tract to write. I told her of it afterwards. The first interview was so 
hurried that I had no chance to speak upon the subject. I never saw any 
of the letters to his family, but the one directed to his daughter to which 
I have referred. 

[Mr Clapp wished here, to make some remarks relative to some- 
thing written by Mr Pierpont, in which he considered himself as 
injured, but it was ruled out.] 

To the Moderator. — I cannot say that I did not inform the family of Mr 
Pierpont of his returning my money. I took no pains to inform them of 
it. I told other persons ; every one of my acquaintance with whom I 
spoke on the subject of the letters. I thought that to be doing Mr Pier- 
pont justice. 

I should have been fully satisfied if he had made a real effort, and writ- 
ten me two or three letters ; but I do not think he made any effort to ful- 
fil the contract. I have reasons to suppose he did not intend to fulfil the 
contract after reaching Europe. 

Joshua Crane, recalled. — I was at Mrs Pierpont's by invitation, to 
hear letters read from her husband. It was in cold weather. Do not re- 
member from what place they were written. They were fit for the press, 
though there were some things of a private nature in them which I ex- 
cept 

Joseph Hay, recalled. — I was present twice at the house when letters 
were read from Mr Pierpont. One or two of them I admired very much. 
I think I read, or heard read, in all, five letters. In one he described his 
encamping in an Arabian tent, and reclining on a mat with an Arabian 
lady. It was nothing indelicate or improper. The style was witty and 
beautiful. Some ladies and other gentlemen were present at the reading. 
I remember his describing Smyrna. Portions were very beautiful, and 
highly adapted for publication. One half or two thirds of what he wrote 
was fit for the press, but other parts were about domestic and individual 
matters. Mrs Pierpont used to shew these letters to any member of the 
Society who wished to see them. They were written, I should say, after 
the letter to Mr Clapp. I had a conversation with him in which he com- 
plained of Mr Pierpont, but I defended him. This was also after his let- 
ter was received, I should think. 

[Questions were put as to what the conversation was, between 
Mr Clapp and the Witness, and objected to by Washburn as irrele- 
vant, but ruled in by the Moderator.] 

Witness. I spoke to Mr Clapp about his expected letters. He said, 
Mr Pierpont had deceived him. I told him to keep cool, Mr Pierpont had 
not deceived him. 

Mr Clapp called afterwards at my counting room, said he was sorry he 
had spoken so of Mr Pierpont, and would take that back. 



144 



Thomas Adams, Jr., of Q,uincy, Sworn. Mr Pierpont has lectured in 
Quincy, I have heard him once there, on Phrenology. It was one of a 
number or course, and was in the year 1835 or 1836. I heard him lecture 
on Doric fire places, January, 28th, 1835. In his lecture on Phrenology, 
something was said which some of the ladies thought improper. He was 
speaking of the organ near the back of the neck being large, and said, 
that the difference between a Bull and an Ox could be told by this de- 
velopement. He remarked that this was sufficient to say. He said other 
things considered offensive. 

[The witness manifested an unwillingness to quote the other ob- 
jectionable matter.] 

Cross- Examined. I should think the other to be more offensive than 
what I have quoted, I am uncertain whether this was in a lecture before the 
Lyceum or not, and don't remember on which subject he lectured first, 
on Phrenology or on Doric fire places. I believe he has lectured before 
the Lyceum in Quincy since he lectured there on Phrenology, but not 
having been lately one of the directors, I am not certain. 

Timothy Tileston, Sworn. I have been a worshipper in Hollis 
Street Meeting House, more than forty years. Should think I had been a 
Proprietor about eighteen years. I never heard of any Society divisions 
previous to Mr Pierpont's becoming the minister. The House was well 
filled when he first came. I attribute its present state of division to dis- 
satisfaction with him. I was never much pleased with him as a preacher. 
I don't think he has done his duty in visiting his people, but do not com- 
plain of any neglect towards myself. When he has been absent from the 
city I have had to procure another clergyman to perform duties at my 
house. My mother used to complain of his neglecting her. He has 
been known to visit a young couple who lived in the same house with 
her, and pass by her sick chamber door without even asking for her. 
I used to be at my mother's house every night, but never saw him there, 
except at my father's death. For more than six years he never visited my 
mother. She belonged to his Church, and attended his meeting as long 
as her health would allow her to go to meeting. I was never very fond 
of his preaching, much less so, after he began upon these subjects now 
complained of. I am willing to have them preached upon, but not point- 
edly. He was at sometimes understood as meaning to refer to individ- 
uals, in his public preaching. I heard him once in Faneuil Hall, on the 
Poor Debtor law. He spoke of a member of his Society, spechifying 
whom he meant as much as that would do it. 

Cross- Examined. My mother lived with my sister, and about one year 
before her death, they moved from Pleasant to Fleet street, and my sister 
then went to a Baptist meeting. Her Baptist minister attended the fu- 
neral. For 5 or 6 years before my mother's death, my sister's husband 
belonged to Mr Motte's Society. My mother died in 1835. 

To the Moderator. I never had any conversation with Mr Pierpont re- 
lative to his not visiting my mother. Mr Pierpont never refused to call 
at my house when asked. He was not asked to go to see my mother. I 
once talked with her about inviting him to call on her, she said, it was no 
matter, he knew his duty. I am a plane maker by trade, and Mr Pierpont 
used to come into my shop to use tools. He ground the file to make his 
steel hone, in my shop. The causes of dissatisfaction against Mr Pier- 
pont include the intemperate manner in which he advocated temper- 



145 



ance. I complain of his preaching on that, and Imprisonment for Debt, 
so pointedly, instead of doing it in a style more general. 

John D. Williams, Sworn. I have belonged to the Society between 
forty and fifty years, and been for more than forty years a member of the 
Church. I have sometimes held offices in the Parish. I have attended 
the Proprietor's meetings ; but less frequently of late years, on account 
of my infirmities, and have voted by proxy. When Mr Pierpont first was 
settled here as a minister, $2000 was considered as a proper salary. 
Some people thought his circumstances required $2200. I think his first 
split in the Society was caused by that. I think the present dissatisfac- 
tion grows out of Mr Pierpont's imprudence, and generally agree with Mr 
Hay's testimony on that point. The preaching of Mr Pierpont has not 
been sufficiently evangelical, and I believe that if our friend had posses- 
sed more of the deep humility of our Lord and Master, as more particular- 
ly described in the writings of Fenelon, he would not stand here, as he 
does now. I think the temperance question has not been the main spoke 
in the existing disturbance, though it had something to do with it. I was 
one of the Standing Committee that built this House of worship. But one 
other is now remaining. I was also Chairman of the Committee to ex- 
amine the accounts. 

[There were no questions put in Cross-examination.] 

Ruel Baker, Sworn. I commenced worshipping here in 1816. My 
own dissatisfaction began with Mr Pierpont's preaching upon the Poor 
Debtor law. His manner, though, was worse than his matter. His views 
were generally different from mine on such subjects as Anti-Slavery, &c, 
I have sometimes supposed him to be personal in his remarks from the 
pulpit 

Cross-Examined. I have not worshipped in Hollis Street Meeting 
House since last October. I was an officer of the Ancient and Honora- 
ble, the year before Mr Pierpont preached before them, but not that year. 
I was then a member of it and have been these twenty years. 

Daniel Weld, Sworn. I have known no other place of worship for 
fifty years, than Hollis Street Church. I have been a member of the 
church these thirty years. I think we have heard from the witnesses a 
very true account of the state of the Society. It was very harmonious, 
till ten or twelve years after Mr Pierpont was settled. Things have since 
grown up unpleasant I should say it began with his preaching on the 
difficulties between Mr Wyman and Mr Gore. The first great outbreak 
in the annual meeting was in 1838. I was present at the meeting of a 
few gentlemen at Mr Everett's. [The witness described the meeting at 
Mr Everett's, the same as it has been described by other witnesses. He 
mentioned the conversation there held relative to Mr Pierpont's remarks, 
referring to Mr Wyman, and said that Mr Childs then told Mr Pierpont, 
that he had mistaken and mistated that affair. Mr Childs said that he 
had his version of it from Deacon West Deacon May corroborated Mr 
Childs' account of it, and also told Mr Pierpont that he had mistaken the 
truth of the story.] 

I think the breach now existing could not be healed. The friends of 
Mr Pierpont began the business of buying up pews, and going abroad for 
proxies out of the city and State. I don't think that we ever did the last. 
Before Mr Pierpont went to Europe, folks complained of his neglecting 
to visit. My family have been dissatisfied with his preaching and visit- 
ing. [Witness here referred to the Sermon just before Mr Pierpont went 



146 



abroad, and to the first preached after his return, and gave a similar ac- 
count to that already stated.] 

In my opinion, if Mr Pierpont had done, after his return from Europe, 
as he promised to do, in that Sermon before he went, the breach then ex- 
isting would have been healed. I think he has done nothing to harmon- 
ize. 

[The Council adjourned.] 

Tuesday Forenoon, July 13, 1841. 
Daniel Weld, called by Washburn. Q. — Do you remember three 
pews having been bought in 1839 ? 

A. — I have no recollection or knowledge of it but by Report 
Q. — Were they bought by distillers ? 

A. — I never knew of myself, I believe that two were bought by dis- 
tillers. 

William B. Fowle, Sworn. 

[Mr Dexter stated that this witness came forward reluctantly, 
and not on any complaint of his own. He then asked the witness 
to state what he knew respecting a certain copyright in school 
books in which he was concerned with Mr Pierpont.] 

Mr Fowle. — Mr Pierpont called on me in 1823 to print an edition of 
Scott's Lessons. I was then a bookseller and publisher, and taught an ex- 
perimental school. The object of Mr Pierpont was to get a better print- 
ed edition than the one in use. Mr Pierpont was then one of the School 
Committee. I told him that would not remedy the evil, and I proposed he 
should make a new book. He declined. In two or three weeks he call- 
ed again, said he would try his hand, and we share the profits if I would 
print it. I objected to this, on many accounts ; but offered, if he would 
make a book I would pay him. He asked how much. I said $400. He 
said if I would give $500 he would put his name to the book, I agreed 
to it; he said it was a bargain, and we made this contract, (which was 
produced, as follows.) 

It is hereby agreed between John Pierpont and William B. Fowle, that 
the said Pierpont shall prepare for the press a reading book suitable for 
the highest classes in the Boston Public Schools, to contain about five 
hundred pages duodecimo, and the said Fowle engages to pay the said 
Pierpont for the copyright of the said book, five hundred dollars in a note, 
payable one year after the work is printed, and bearing interest after six 
months from date, both parties agreeing to use their endeavors to correct 
the press, perfect the work, and promote its circulation. 

JOHN PIERPONT. 

WM. B. FOWLE. 

Boston, January 21, 1823. 

Mr Pierpont compiled the book with my assistance. It was printed, 
and the money paid to him. I took out the copyright, and supposed it en- 
tirely mine. It was the American First Class Book. The principal thing 
I did was furnishing some compilations I had imported. I also pre- 
pared the plan of the book, to conform to Bingham's mode instead of 
Scott's, which Mr Pierpont had intended to follow. He adopted my plan 
in the book, and his own in the index. I also advised as to the selections, 
and we jointly read all the proofs of the book. 



147 



I furnished him with several rare books I had procured from England. 
One of the original pieces is mine ; or rather an altered translation from 
the French. It was published in June, 1823. In 1827, Mr Pierpont pre-, 
pared another school book, the National Reader. I did not publish that. 
Soon after, he came to me and wished to get some property in his first 
born, as he called the Class Book. He proposed to have a joint interest 
in the two books. I agreed to it, though not thinking it a fair equivalent, 
as the book I had was well established in public favor, and the new one 
would have to be tried. The contract, here produced, was then made be- 
tween us. 

It is hereby agreed between John Pierpont and William B. Fowle, 
that, whereas the said Pierpont has compiled a new Reading Book, called 
the National Reader, and the said Fowle is already the sole proprietor of 
the copyright of the American First Class Book, the copyrights of both 
books shall be considered the joint and equal property of the said Pierpont 
and Fowle, from and after the date of this instrument ; the said Fowle 
considering one half the copyright of the National Reader a full 
equivalent for the half of his American First Class Book, and the said 
Pierpont considering the one half of the American First Class Book a 
full equivalent for one half of the copyright of the National Reader. 

The two contracting parties above named also agree to promote their 
joint interest so far as they have ability, no one party ever acting without 
the consent of the other, and each affording his advice and aid to the 
other without any remuneration other than will be derived from the pro- 
motion of their joint interest: and should either party be compelled to part 
with his moiety of the copyright, he shall first offer it to the other at the 
same rate for which he can sell it to any other person. 

And whereas the said Fowle has sold the right of printing the Ameri 
can First Class Book to Cummings, Hilliard & Co. for the term of five 
years from the 15th of March, 1825, and the said Pierpont has sold the 
privilege of printing the National Reader to Richardson &. Lord, for five 
years from the 12th of July, 1827, it is understood that each party to this 
instrument adopts the agreement of the other with said booksellers, and, 
from the date of this instrument, they both become jointly interested in 
the profits or losses which may arise therefrom, it being understood that 
the said Pierpont has no claim to any profit to which the said Fowle may 
be entitled on account of that part of the term of his contract with C. H. 
& Co. which expired previous to the date of this agreement. 

At Boston, signed with mutual good faith, this twelfth day of July, in 
the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and twentyseven. 

JOHN PIERPONT. 
WM. B. FOWLE. 

Witness, — W. A. Pierpont. 

Witness. — We went on two or three years dividing the profits of the 
two books until in 1830 I learned Mr Pierpont had pledged the whole of 
the proceeds of the National Reader, to some creditor, without my con- 
sent. I do not know the name. I know the fact, because the whole pro- 
ceeds were paid over to another. When we made the contract, Richard- 
son & Lord were to print the books, and we share the proceeds. I went 
to Mr Pierpont and asked if it was so, he said he had transferred it, and 
I then asked that he should secure me the whole of the other book. He 
agreed to do so. I thought it strange that he should have disposed of 
the book in violation of our agreement. 



148 



[The agreement here produced was thus made.] 

Boston, December 28, 1830. 
It is hereby agreed between the subscribers that the proceeds of the 
National Reader shall be received by Mr Pierpont until the first day of 
January, 1832, and the proceeds of the American First Class Book shall 
be received by Mr Fowle until the said January 1, 1832, when an account 
shall be rendered mutually, and the balance adjusted according to the 
agreement existing between us relative to said books. 

JOHN PIERPONT. 
WM. B. FOWLE. 

This agreement was made in consequence of my complaint at his pro- 
ceeding in pledging the National Reader without my consent At the 
close of this contract we settled ; and he having received for the Reader 
more than I had for the Class Book, paid over to me my proportion. We 
then went on to share the profits for some years, as before. I then dis- 
covered that he had sold his half of both of the books without apprizing 
me of it. This was in 1836. I did not learn it from him but from another 
source. 

Previous to this, in 1830, Mr Pierpont set up a claim to the entire pro- 
perty of the book. I had paid him for making the Class Book. The 
copyright expired in 1837. He claimed to have the renewal of the copy- 
right for fourteen years, as the author, to my entire exclusion. I remon- 
strated, and Mr Pierpont addressed me the following note. 

When Mr Pierpont proposed to set up this claim, I wrote him a note, 
stating that it was dishonorable, and sent him a memorandum to sign, dis- 
claiming it. He refused to sign it. 

My Dear Sir : — The past week has been one of so many professional 
calls that it has not been convenient to me to go to see you, or to ask you 
to come and see me on the subject of the question of copyright, which, 
at our last talk, we left unsettled. I expect, now, to be a little more free- 
handed for a few days, and should be glad of an opportunity of further 
conference. 

I am not prepared to sign the memorandum that you sent me, for my 
opinion is, as yet, leaning strongly the other way — a bias, possibly, of in- 
terest. I had looked a little at the question, as a question of law, before 
I saw you last ; and have, I think, looked a little further since ; but there 
are obstacles to your construction, which I cannot yet remove. When we 
can agree, by any means, as to what our respective rights are, I shall be 
ready, on my part, to enter into any writings to acknowledge and protect 
them on both sides. 

Will you appoint some hour, when, on your way home, you can call at 
my study, and bring with you all the law that you can find upon the sub- 
ject ? My receipt, also, if you have preserved it, for the consideration of 
the copyright of the American First Class Book. I will try to be unen- 
gaged, and at your service. Yours, truly, 

JOHN PIERPONT. 

Sunday Evening, \Wi April, 1830. 

Witness, continued. — I never thought of or suspected this claim, till 
he stated it. It arose in this way. In a note to me on another subject he 
had said, " when the copyright reverts to me." I inquired what he meant, 
and that brought it out This matter was never settled. It still remains 
unsettled between us. Our contract went on till 1836, when I learnt he 



149 



had sold his half of both the books. I was not allowed to see the con- 
tract he made, though I was a joint partner, and have never seen it. The 
sale was to Richardson, Lord & Holbrook for several years. It was made 
without consulting me, while we were under contract. 

Dexter. — Does the pastor admit the sale to have been made ? 
Mr Pierpont. — Go as far as you please. 

Dexter. — Do you admit or deny the sale of the two books ? The 
contract is not in our reach. 

Mr Pierpont. — The sale of the right to print, not of the copy- 
right. 

Washburn. — Was not the copyright run out, when Mr Pier- 
pont's sale was to take effect ? 
Answer by the witness. 

When the contract made by Mr Pierpont was to take effect, the first 
fourteen years of the copyright of one of the books would expire, the 
other not. The printing was to take effect of one half of both books 
after 1837, leaving me to do as I could. I felt I was in Mr Pierpont's 
power, and he showed he felt so. In the mean time the printers had fail- 
ed, and Charles Bowen as assignee of Carter & Hendee, became the 
printer. Mr Pierpont sold the right to print his half of both copyrights, 
which prevented my selling to any other publisher, for no one would pur- 
chase a half right when the other was sold to another person. The con- 
sequence was that Mr Bowen refused my offer to sell to him, and defied 
me to sell to any other. I then had to sell to him on his own terms. I 
did not prosecute Mr Pierpont, as I had a right to do, though I felt wrong- 
ed ; I was reluctant at taking that course. I sold, as I supposed, for the 
same time Mr Pierpont had, in the hope we could then go on again upon 
our contract. In consequence of being put into the power of Mr Bowen, 
by the sale by Mr Pierpont without my consent, I was compelled to sell 
for about four-fifths of the lowest valuation. Mr Pierpont never asked 
me to buy, or consulted me as to selling his part to any one. 

[The witness here read a letter from Mr Bowen, the publisher, 
of March 28, 1837.] 

I had threatened to find another purchaser. Mr Bowen, in his letter, 
states the annual proceeds of the sales of the two books, at $1200. The 
receipts were more. For many years Mr Pierpont and myself divided 
$1400 between us. In Mr Pierpont's contract with Bowen he has sold 
four rights. [The letter of Mr Bowen here follows.] 

Dear Sir : — I have just received your note of this date and hasten to re- 
ply. In doing so, you will excuse me for remarking in the outset, that your 
remarks contain rather too large an infusion of threats to suit my palate, 
and I frankly say, that I am the last person likely to be operated upon by 
this sort of argument. You plainly intimate, that unless I come up to 
your terms, you will take the books out of my hands. I doubt your power 
to do so : and I shall certainly incur the risk by declining to accept either 
of your offers. The copyright on your one half of the National Reader 
is already paid for up to June, 1841, and to rate your remaining property 
in this book and the Class Book at $5000 is wholly and utterly out of— 
the question; (I came near to using a stronger phrase.) You say the 
minimum receipts of the two rights have been $1200 per annum. If my 
memory serves me aright, $1200 is the maximum of the yearly receipts. 
The average for several years past has not been $1000. Take, however, 



150 



the maximum sum of $1200. One half of this is yours : say $600 ; but 
out of this at least one half should be deducted as the proportion of the 
National Reader, leaving but $300 as the highest yearly income that the 
class book has yielded. You ask me to guarantee you $400 per year for 
four years, and the only reason assigned for such an extraordinary claim, 
is, that I " have increased the sale of the book," and therefore you are 
alone to reap the advantage. This seems to me scant justice. It is true 
I have increased the sale ; and as some cautious people would say, have 
been foolish enough to candidly give you the information, even while a 
negociation on the subject of copyright was pending. Allow me to re- 
mark, however, that I have increased the sale solely by reducing the 
price ; and if compelled to do so, it is equally in my power to again raise 
the price, and thus place matters where they were before. If the books 
are packed out of the market by too stiff an adherence to old prices, the 
blame and loss does not by any means fall on me alone. 

I am willing to pay you $800 by a note at six months on interest, for 
the right of printing the Class Book for four years from June next, — or I 
will pay you $1200 by four notes of $300 each, payable in one, two, three 
and four years, without interest. This offer is based on precisely the same 
principle as that on which I have already bought of you the right for the 
National Reader, and of Mr Pierpont four rights. I can see no good 
reason why I should now give you more. 

Truly your friend, CHARLES BO WEN. 

Tuesday evening, March 28, 1837. 

In 1830, Mr Pierpont and I sold the National Reader, till 1841, to Rich- 
ardson & Lord, and it afterwards came to Bowen, as assignee of Carter 
& Hendee. I found I could do nothing else, and I sold my part of both 
books to Bowen, on his own terms. He paid down, and I gave a receipt. 
The sum was $800 for four years. Mr Bowen knew the terms of my con- 
tract with Mr Pierpont. I read it to him. Whether Mr Pierpont knew 
my contract with Bowen I do not know. He had got the start of me in 
the sale, and left me at the mercy of the publisher, to get what I could. 

Before the contract expired, Mr Pierpont again got the start of me, and 
sold his part to the same publisher for a term of years. I remonstrated, 
but could do nothing unless I prosecuted Mr Pierpont, which I did not 
wish to do. When I applied to Mr Bowen, to sell my half, he said he had 
exhausted his means in buying Mr Pierpont's half, and could not afford to 
pay me for mine. He finally agreed to give me what was equal to $1620. 
I was about to execute the contract with David H. Williams, Bowen's 
agent, when he told me he had received a letter from Mr Fletcher, Mr 
Pierpont's lawyer, forbidding his dealing with me, on the ground that Mr 
Pierpont claimed the copyright of this book I had paid him for writing, 
as reverting to him, at the end of the fourteen years. I complained of 
this proceeding as unjust. Mr Pierpont wrote to me about this time giv- 
ing me notice that this matter about the copyright had been brought into 
the charges against him by the Proprietors of his church, and giving that 
as his reason for interfering with me in the sale of my part of the books. 
I wrote back to deprecate his wrath, assuring him I had no concern in it, 
and he replied that I had furnished his enemies with a cudgel to beat him. 
[The letter was here produced, but not read.] I had no concern whatever 
in getting up this charge in his congregation. 

The contract was then broken off with Mr Bowen, to purchase my part. 
At a subsequent time I succeeded in making a contract with Mr Bowen, 
but on terms much inferior. I first asked him $1800 for my half for five 



151 



years. He finally agreed to give $1620, to be paid down. This was to 
be for five years from 1840, for the half of the two books. This is what 
I should have received if Mr Pierpont had not broken off the negocia- 
tion by Mr Fletcher's letter forbidding the sale. 

Some time after, I did receive about eleven hundred dollars from Bowen 
for my part, and a note payable in five years for $600, without interest, in 
all about $1400. In consequence of Mr Pierpont's proceedings I have 
never been able to get my fair share of the books. I do not know what 
Mr Pierpont sold for. He refused to let me know until, as he said, the 
previous question of ownership should be settled. The publisher let me 
see a memorandum of a part of the contract with Mr Pierpont. He said 
some parts of it were secret. All the information I got was after Mr 
Fletcher had written to break off the contract. Mr Pierpont had sold four 
books in his contract. I had a claim in but two. How much he got, I 
never knew. 

Cross-Examined by Mr Washburn. In 1827 the National Reader was 
published. The copy right expired in 1841. I first sold the right of pub- 
lishing my half, sometime in 1836, after Mr Pierpont had sold his without 
my consent. You can learn the whole by getting at Mr Pierpont's contract 
with Mr Bowen. He has gone to the Western Country, but his Agent is 
here, and Mr David H. Williams has the papers. When we became joint 
owners in 1830, we agreed that the contract should extend ten years, up 
to 1841. The National Reader was then near out on the first copyright. 
Cannot tell whether the contract to sell the other part was in 1836, or not. 
The difficulty all arose from Mr Pierpont's claiming the book he compiled 
for me, and for which, I fully paid him at the time. It was never contem- 
plated that lie was to have any property in it. I hired him to write it for 
five hundred dollars. I paid him, and he had as good a right to claim any 
thing else I possessed as that. 

Upon the first breach by Mr Pierpont of his contract in selling without 
my knowledge, I did remonstrate, and got a paper drawn up, between us. 
On the second breach, I presume I did remonstrate, but there was no 
writing as on the former occurrence. I saw it was of no use. I consid- 
ered he had violated the contract, and my only choice was to get what I 
could out of the publisher, or prosecute Mr Pierpont, which would be an 
unpleasant resort. Our contract was to share in both books alike. In 
1830, he pledged the entire proceeds of one book, and left me to get what I 
could out of the other. When I sold my part to Mr Bowen in 1836 or 1837, 
I guaranteed Mr B. against the claim of Mr Pierpont. He would not pur- 
chase of me without a guarantee. Mr Pierpont, in 1830, pledged the pro- 
ceeds of one entire book. [In answer to a question of Mr Gannett, how 
Mr Pierpont could pledge Mr Fowle's property, it was explained that the 
copy right of the National Reader, being in Mr Pierpont's name, he could 
sell the whole, though under a contract with Mr Fowle, to share half the 
proceeds. He had the legal power to sell the whole, to the exclusion of 
Mr Fowle.] 

The witness further stated that Mr Pierpont pledged the whole of the 
National Reader proceeds without his consent. That was a direct vio- 
lation, as he considered, of the contract. 

George Morey, Esq., sworn in relation to a want of decorum in mat- 
ter and manner in the public discourses and religious performances of Mr 
Pierpont. 

Dexter — Were you present at the funeral of Mrs Stewart, when the 
prayer on that occasion was pronounced by Mr Pierpont ? 

Washburn. — Objects that this was since July 27, 1840, the date of the 



152 



charges against Mr Pierpont, and is not to be tried here. He asked the 
Council to confine the testimony to what happened before July, 1840. 
This was a very recent occurrence, now attempted to be introduced. 
Mr Pierpont comes prepared only to answer the charges of July, 1840. 

Dexter. — We agree he is to answer only to the charges of July, 
but the evidence to support them, at any time may be gone into. The 
charge is want of Christian graces, and these are specified : and under 
that head we offer this evidence. The respondent is to be informed of 
the charges before hand, but not of the evidence to sustain them. The 
agreement under which we come here, is, to go into all matters tending 
to establish the charges, and it is immaterial when they happened. 

Washburn. — We came here to try the charges laid out in this paper 
up to the time they were made, the 27th of July, 1840, and the conduct of 
the respondent up to that time. The contract between the Pastor, and 
the Society could only be dissolved on the grounds of those charges, and 
if he is called to answer for acts subsequent to the " Grounds of Com- 
plaint," it would be finding upon matters which properly belong to anoth- 
er Council, that should be called by a subsequent agreement 

Rand. — This is no attempt to introduce a new ground of complaint, 
but only evidence to substantiate an old one. It would be strange if an 
Ecclesiastical Council should be more technical in rejecting evidence, 
than courts of law would be. There you might introduce new matter by 
amendment of the declaration, giving the other party time to meet it, if he 
desires. Could the Council feel justified in refusing to listen to grave 
charges against a clergyman on the only ground, that facts to strengthen 
the charge had happened after the charges were filed ? 

Washburn further objected. 

Mr Pierpont wished to put it in another light. If they had asked him 
to go into every thing that should happen thereafter, when agreeing to a 
Mutual Council he should never have done it. Was he not then taken 
by surprise ? 

The Moderator. — If this were a new charge, it could not in his opin- 
ion be received, but any evidence going to establish any of the charges, 
it is competent for the Council to receive. He considered the evidence 
admissible. That which went to show that the same causes of complaint 
continued to exist, was important to a right decision of this Council. 
They were to advise upon the existing relation between Pastor and peo- 
ple, and it was highly essential to know how those relations stood now, 
as well as up to July, 1840. 

Mr D'othingham and Mr Barrett dissented, and objected to any 
fact being shoAvn after the date of the charges in July. 

Mr Bairett was much surprised at this course. 

Mr Gannett was as much surprised as his brother, but on the other 
side. It was already settled that under the general charges other spe- 
cifications than those enumerated might be made. The only test was 
whether this was a new charge, or only new evidence under an old 
charge. If the latter, the Council were bound to receive it. The Coun- 
cil were to advise as to the existing relations of the Pastor with the parish, 
under all the circumstances, in order to restore harmony if practicable. 
They had already gone into an inquiry as to a Sermon preached the last 
Sunday, and no objection was then raised. 

The Moderator, unless otherwise directed, should consider, that un- 
der the several charges and " Grounds of Complaint," all such facts as 
tend to establish the same are admissible in evidence. 

Mr Barrett denied that any facts were meant, subsequent to the 



153 



date of the charges. He could but feel and express his utter surprise at 
the construction put upon the agreement as to the charges to be tried 
here. 

Mr Lothrop. — It would be absurd for this Council to sit here, if that 
construction is not the right one. If the only question for us is, how the 
parties stood in 1840, we had better dissolve. A whole year had passed 
since, and were the Council to undertake to decide between these parties, 
as what ought to be done without any knowledge of how matters stood 
now ? Our whole inquiry has got to be what is best to be done now, not 
what might have been best to be done a year ago. 

Mr Dorr could not vote for this evidence, for he considered it a mere 
specification. 

Mr Lothrop. But not a mere charge — that is the distinction. 

The question being put whether facts since the date of the charges, 
shall be received to sustain the original charges, the vote on deciding, 
was 9 to 9. The Moderator decided in the affirmative, to admit the tes- 
timony. 

Washburn asked to have the Respondent's protest against this de- 
cision noted in the Journal, to save his rights, and it was done. 

Mr Morey proceeded in his testimony. He attended worship here in 
1824. His leaving was not connected with the dissensions in the So- 
ciety. He was present at the funeral of Mrs Stewart, the wife of Mr 
Enos Stewart, and daughter of Benjamin Bussey, who was formerly a mem- 
ber of this parish. Mr and Mrs Stewart resided at the U. S. Hotel, in 
Boston. She was sick there and died. He attended the funeral. Mr 
Pierpont officiated. Mr Bussey was present ; and I understood Mrs B. 
was. Mr Pierpont commenced his prayer in the usual manner, though 
he appeared somewhat excited. " At length he said " thou did'st not for- 
sake her," (laying an emphasis on thou.) " And though her friends were 
away, thou did'st not forsake her." He then represented the husband 
as standing by her bed of death and spoke emphatically of his kindness 
and attention. He prayed fervently for the daughter of the deceased, 
(I supposed Mrs Motley,) that she might be more happy than her moth- 
er had been, and alluded to the deceased having suffered deeply, in 
mind and body. 

Thus far I do not know that I should have considered the prayer as a 
personal reflection, but he soon placed that beyond doubt in my mind. 
He said " though denied a place in her earthly father's house, yet thou her 
heavenly father did' 'st not forsake her.^ His manner was excited, some- 
what, perhaps the language made it more striking. The allusion to Mr 
Bussey was perfectly understood. It was known that Mr Bussey was op- 
posed to the match, when his daughter married Mr Stewart. That they 
went to Europe, and Mr Stewart did not visit at Mr Bussey's on their re- 
turn, though Mrs Stewart did. There was a difference of opinion as to 
Mr Bussey's treatment of his daughter. Some thought he had been lib- 
eral and kind, and others that considering his large wealth he had not 
been liberal enough. I took no part in this controversy. I had known 
Mr Stewart from the time of his leaving College- I attended the funeral 
on account of my acquaintance with him and his wife. I was also an 
inmate of the Hotel at the time. 

During the illness of Mrs Stewart, the father and mother were there 
several times, once or twice certainly. 

Being asked to state the language of Mr Pierpont, as nearly as he can, 
— Witness says he used language in reference to Mr Bussey, the father, 
20 



154 



like this, — " While he may shed no tears on his pillow, may he find no 
thorns there." After that his language was more general. His con- 
clusion was, that on a review of all the circumstances that had occurred 
between the parents and their deceased child, and the feelings that had 
been exercised, they might have all the consolation an Almighty power 
could give them. The prayer was not calculated to be consolatory, but 
the reverse. Mr Bussey stood near me, and I observed him. At the first 
part of the prayer he appeared affected, and shed tears ; but as it went on 
he dried up his tears, breathed hard and quick, clenched his cane and 
looked with a degree of severity towards Mr Pierpont. His grief was 
evidently changed to anger. 

Among those present at the time, there was a variety of feeling indi- 
cated. A few took sides against Mr Bussey, and seemed well pleased. 
Others manifested decided disapprobation. One or two gentlemen ex- 
pressed themselves pretty freely. The ladies seemed frightened and ex- 
cited, as if apprehensive something unpleasant might occur. 

[The examination of Mr Morey on the part of the Proprietors, 
here closed, and the Respondent's Council was asked if he had 
any questions to put.] 

Washburn. — This matter is entirely new to us, I do not propose to 
ask a single question ; there are circumstances in the history of this fam- 
ily, that we might bring out, but we forbear, and prefer to leave it unex- 
plained as it is. I am sorry they have seen fit to bring it in in this un- 
expected manner when we have no time to go into it. 

Dexter. — There will be ample time for a week to come, before the 
close of this inquiry. 

In answer to Mr Gannett, the witness says he understood that Mr 
Bussey was owner of a pew in Mr Pierpont's Church, at this time 

In answer to Washburn, — in 1838 or '39 witness furnished a proxy of a 
pew to Winsor Fay. He did so at the request of a client who owned the 
pew, I had transferred it to him as collateral security for a debt for profes- 
sional services. I did not know what the proxy was to be used for, and 
finding I was likely to be quoted in the controversy, I got the pew off my 
hands as quick as possible. I transferred it back to my client, and I be 
lieve he sold it to Mr Fay. 

In answer to the Moderator, I had no conversation with Mr Pierpont 
respecting the prayer. Nothing has since occurred to change my impres- 
sion as to the effect of the prayer. 

Joseph T. Buckingham called, and requested to take the oath. 
Mr Buckingham said he doubted the power of this Council to administer 
oaths, and wished to see their authority. There was a laAv against extra- 
judicial oaths, which punished those who received, as well as those who 
administered them, and he did not wish to subject himself to an indict- 
ment under that statute. 

The Moderator said that the Council had decided they possessed 
the power. 

Mr Buckingham. — Will the learned counsel guarantee me against 
a prosecution? 

Dexter. — You shall be indemnified. 

Mr Buckingham. — I wish to have this assurance put upon the record. 
Dexter. — You have it. 

Mr Buckingham. — My opinion is, that the proceedings here, in admin- 
istering oaths, is altogether irregular. 



155 



The Moderator. — The Council have considered it, and are willing 
to take the responsibility. 

Mr Sullivan then administered the oath to the witness, in the usual 
form. 

Dexter. — Will you state what you know relative to a prize offered by 
Mr Pelby of the National Theatre, for a Prologue, at the opening of the 
new Theatre. Who was the author ? 

A. — How can I know ? 

Dexter. — Did Mr Pierpont ever tell you he was the author ? 
A. — I am not aware he ever did. 

Dexter. — To whom did you pay the money awarded for the prize ? 

A. — I received it through Mr Hayden, from the Manager, Mr Pelby, 
and paid it to Mr Pierpont All the circumstances have been published, 
except the names, in a letter I sent to Mr Clapp, of the Evening Ga- 
zette. 

Dexter. — Did any one before that, give you so to understand ? 

A. — When the prize was offered, a gentleman did ask me, whether 
if a prologue should be sent to me, or to the Manager with my know- 
ledge, I could be trusted with it, as a confidential friend ; I said yes. 

Dexter. — Was that gentleman the Rev. Mr Pierpont ? 

A. — It was. 

Q. — Did he send you a prologue ? 
A.— No. 

Q. — Did he call for the prize money ? 
A.— No. 

Q. — Why did you give it to Mr Pierpont ? 

A. — After the conversation I have related, I received a letter through 
the Post Office from Hartford signed " J. Jameson," informing me that 
a prologue had been sent to the Manager, and requesting me to receive 
the money if it was awarded the prize, and pay it where I supposed 
it belonged. 

Q. — In whose hand writing was that letter? 

A. — I cannot swear positively, but I have no doubt it was Mr Pierpont's. 
I believe I have it, and if I can find it, will produce it. 

Q. — When you gave Mr Pierpont the prize money, for the prologue, 
what conversation took place ? 

A. — I cannot recollect whether I handed it to him or sent it in a note. 

Mr Pierpont. — It was delivered to me by Mr Buckingham. 

Mr B. — I had forgotten that 

Dexter. — How did Mr Pierpont know why this money was given to him, 
and what for ? 

A. — I presume he understood it In consequence of the letter I had 
received, and the previous conversation with Mr P. I called on Mr Hay- 
den after the prize was awarded, and he got the money, and delivered it to 
Mr Pierpont. 

Q. — Was there a discussion in the newspapers respecting this prize 
and the name of the author ? 

A. — There was. Mr Sprague was on the Committee, and he and I 
were both abused for concealing the real name of the author. It was 
known that the signature, "J. Jameson," was fictitious. We were 
charged with colluding with the author. He knew nothing of the 
author. He was accused of conniving with me to get the money in 
an unfair manner. The charges directly affected the character of the 
Committee, and were all unjust. 



156 



In answer to Mr Gannett. — I paid the money to Mr Pierpont, because I 
considered it as belonging to him. 

Mr Gannett. — Why did you consider it as belonging to him ? 

A. — Because Mr P. had asked me if in case a prologue should be sent 
to me or the manager, I could be considered as a confidential friend to pay 
the money, if it was successful, where I supposed it belonged. I consid- 
ered that sufficient, and paid it to Mr Pierpont. He made no objection to 
receive it. The prologue was sent not to me, but to the manager, and at 
the same time a letter was sent to me, informing me of it. After getting 
this letter I sent to the manager to get the original prologue. I presume 
it to have been in Mr Pierpont's hand-writing. Mr P. never expressed 
any surprise at my giving him the money. No word ever passed in con- 
versation in which Mr Pierpont acknowledged that he was the author. 

Mr Lothrop. — Have you any doubt that Mr Pierpont was the author ? 

A. — I have no doubt of it. It is my opinion. 

Mr Gannett. — Have you any other reasons for believing so than the 
facts you have stated ? 
A.~ No other. 

[A statement of this transaction, published in the Evening Ga- 
zette, was here put in, and Mr B. testified that it was a correct state- 
ment, and was made by him to Mr Clapp in December, 1839. The 
prize was given for the prologue in 1827.] 

Friday Morning, Dec. 13, 1839. 
Dear Sir — For one or two years past, I have heard it occasionally intimated 
that the Rev. John Pierpont is the author of the Prologue, spoken at the open- 
ing of the Tremont Theatre, and that you are acquainted with the fact who 
had obtained the premium for writing that Prologue. 

Will you please enlighten me on that subject, and say whether Mr Pierpont 
was, or was not, the author of that Address — and also inform me who received 
the premium for writing that Address? — and to whom was it paid ? 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WiVl. W. CLAPP. 
To Joseph T. Buckingham, Esq. Ed. Boston Courier. 

Boston, Dec 13, 1839. 

W. W. Clapp, Esq. 

Dear Sir — To your letter of this morning, requesting me to inform you 
who was the author of the Prize Prologue, spoken at the opening of the Tre- 
mont Theatre, who received the premium, and to whom it was paid, 1 do not 
feel at liberty to give a direct reply. If a brief history of ray agency in the 
affair can give you any satisfaction, it is at your service. 

Sometime in the summer (1 think early in July) of 1827, Mr Pelby offered, 
in the newspapers, a Prize of one hundred dollars for a Prologue to be spoken 
at the opening of the Theatre, which he was then erecting. A day or two 
after the appearance of his advertisement, walking on the Common, I met a 
gentleman with whom I had been for some time on terms of friendship. In the 
course of our conversation, he alluded to Mr Pelby's advertisement, and said — 
If any thing shovld be entrvsted to you, confidentially, in consequence of that 
advertisement , will you take charge of it? To which I replied in the affirma- 
tive. Nothing more was said, and the matter had been little thought of, if ever 
thought of at all, till some weeks after, when I received a letter by mail from 
Hartford, Conn, signed lt J. Jameson," informing me that a Poem had been 
sent to Mr Pelby with the same signature, and requesting me, if the Poem 
should be fortunate enough to obtain the prize, to call on xMr Pelby, receive 
the money, and hand it to the person to whom I should suppose it to belong. — 



157 



The Poem did obtain the prize. A few weeks after it was delivered, Mr Pel 
by paid the money to me, and I enclosed it in a wrapper and sent it to my 
friend, who had claimed my confidence at the interview above mentioned. 1 
do not recollect that I have any acknowledgment of the receipt of it, and no 
conversation has ever passed between us in relation to it. We have often met, 
but the subject has never been alluded to in the most distant manner. 

The angry remarks of disappointed candidates for the prize, and the columns 
of silly criticisms on the Poem, with which certain newspapers were filled in 
relation to this affair, would be a good subject now for literary history, in the 
small way ; but I am not called upon by your letter to enlarge. The name of 
the author of the Prologue, 1 cannot disclose. My intercourse with him has 
been less frequent of late years than formerly, for which I know no reason, 
but the very probable one, that circumstances and inclination have introduced 
him to men of more congenial habits and more exalted pursuits. Hut his secret 
is safe in my keeping. It is under the seal of confidence, which neither cold- 
ness nor neglect — neither indifference or dislike, will induce me to break. 
Yours, respectfully, 

JOS. T. BUCKINGHAM. 

The following is the Prologue referred to in the foregoing corres- 
pondence : — 

Friends of the Stage ! whose brilliant ranks to-night, 
Burst on our view in loveliness and light, > 
The Drama comes before you with her cause, 
And asks your ear;— she dares not ask applause, 
But she does crave your smile upon her train, 
Herself, her priests, and this her virgin fane. 

Friends of the Stage — and friends of virtue too, 

The suppliant Drama brings her suit to you. 

Long has she borne reproach ; — for though her brow 

Of old was luminous, and burns e'en now 

With Heaven's own fire— the intense and hallowed flame, 

That Genius kindles round a deathless name — 

We hear her still denounced as virtue's foe ; 

Still round her shrine is muttered many a wo 5 

Still, at her name the superstitious sigh ; 

The grave, look graver as she passes by ; 

The bigot's ban on all her priesthood falls, 

And pulpit thunders shake her temple walls. 

Has, then, the Stage become a battle-plain, 

Where Honor bleeds, and Innocence is slain ? 

Where Lust lies gorged, and on whose reeking pale 

Birds of ill-omen sit, and snutf the tainted gale ? 

Grant for a moment, — what is yet denied — 

Gi ant that, in this, the stage is not belied 5 

Grant that its scenes are those of sin and shame— 

Whose is the fault?— and where shall fall the blame? 

Rests it with those old Bards whose " Muse of fire," 

Hath strung and waked the everlasting lyre ; 

Who gave to Tragedy her poisoned bowl, 

And with it, empire o'er the human soul? — 

Rests it with him, who with heroic airs, 

The plume, the bonnet, or the buskin wears, 

Whose only hope, as Bashaw, or as Don, 

Is " bread to eat, and raiment to put on ?"' 

Or must it fall, at least, in part, on those 

Who on the Stage pour out their vial'd woes, 

Then trumpet it, with all its purest scenes, 

As the fit haunt of vagabonds and queans ? 

Ye wise, ye fair ones, we appeal to you 5 

Whose were the fault, were all this scandal true ? 



153 



Tell me, ye sternly just, which is the worse 

He, who inflicts, or he who bears, a curse ? 

And tell me — who can with the righteous stand, 

When all the righteous join to drive him from their band ? 

Who can be valiant, on whose head are poured 

By all the brave, " The dastard !" — " craven !" — " coward 

Who honest, — when he hears, in every street, 

The whispered " Swindler !" and the bolden " cheat !" 

Which of your daughters— 1 ell me, ye who throw 

Your poisoned shafts, and seem so well to know 

The " Road to Ruin," — which, of all the fair 

And stainless ones of your parental care, 

Had parents cursed, had sisters shunned, or shamed, 

And brothers named her as the lost are named, 

Would now have sat, thus honored, at your side, 

A blooming maiden, or a happy bride ? 

The kindliest cur that bounds along yonr streets, 

And wags his tail at every child he meets, 

Let mobs pursue, let sticks and stones assail, 

And let " Mad Dog !" behind him load the gale ; — 

Round every corner let the rabble swell, 

In every alley let him hear the yell, 

And let him find one hospitable door, — 

He must go mad, " that was not so before," 

O, was the Stage as pure as Dian's fane, 

When pearled with dew, and washed with vernal rain, 

Let honest zealots call it Belial's throne, 

Let pulpits fulmiate, let presses groan 

Their woes and warnings — and what need they more 

To cause the curse they piously deplore ! — 

Then, at the Drama's pomp, her stole, her vail, 

Let not the serious frown, the righteous rail ; 

But let them come, at evening's sober hour, 

And prove her pathos, and confess her power: 

Nor let them tremble, as her courts they tread, 

Lest sin, among them, show her shameless head, 

Sin is not shameless ; for, though Satan still 

Goes to and fro in earth, intent on ill, 

Though on his brow — with many a thunder sear 

Rugged and seamed — "the bright and morning star" 

Burns as it burned of old, he dares not now, 

Among the sons of God, that godless brow 

Unveiled, and hold unblushingly, a place — 

With angels and the " ministers of grace." 

Let then — the good, the graceful and the grave, 

The wise, the pure, the beautiful, the brave, 

Thereoerend even — to his proud temple turn, 

And judge the Drama from her " words that burn." 

Let them, her Censors, in the Boxes sit, 

Rush to the Rows, and pour into the Pit. 

Let them applaud aloud, alone condemn : 

And Rows, Pit, Boxes, will be left to them 5 

Each boding bird, unfed, will sail away, 

In outer darkness to pursue her prey, 

While all the sons and daughters of the light, 

Rapt by the Drama's spell, shall cheer her as to-night. 

To such, this night, her doors are open flung ; 

On such her priests their proudest hopes have hung : — 

Hopes — that they, here, the soul may wake and warm; 

The good pncourage, and the bad reform : 

Hopes — that within these wide and towering walls, 

(On which heaven's boon — the rain and sunshine falls, 

As on the Church's roof it falls the while,) 

It may be their's " to share the good man's smile ;'' 



159 



And hopes— that Beauty may with grace regard 
The mortal Actor, as the immortal Bard, 
And the same largess on the living shed, 
That she has showered for ages on the dead, — 
That witching smile, that has forever played, 
Around the lips of matron and of maid ; 
And that more treasured tribute, that repays 
All labor a - nd all love 3— that singly sways 
Man's passions in the strength of their career, 
And bows him to the earth— a woman's tear. 
Ye fair ones, and ye wise, to virtue true, 
A smile, a tear,— the meed to Genius due, — 
Is ail the Drama hopes— is all she asks of you. 

Mr Pierpont did not say to me, " If I should prepare a prologue," but it 
was, should any one think proper to send a prologue for the prize, would 
you take charge of it as a confidential friend. 

From that time to this I never had any conversation on this subject with 
him. 

Charles Spragde sworn. Before answering any question he wish- 
ed to say that he came here from his respect to the law and not by incli- 
nation. He should have declined coming at all, but that he loved the 
law better than his own feelings. He was now ready to answer any 
question. 

Dexter. — Were you Chairman of the Committee to decide on the prize 
poem at the opening of the Tremont Theatre, in 1827 ? 
A. — Yes sir. 

Q. — Were charges made in the public prints against the Committee 
for the disposition made of the prize. 

A. — Yes sir, heavy charges, some very bitter, especially against my- 
self. I was Chairman and it was thought well to attack me in particu- 
lar. The lower tier of the lower press was literally opened upon us. The 
accusation was, that the prize was secretly given to some person, by an 
anonymous title, and that it was done to conceal the real author, through 
some improper influence. 

Q. — Was it important to you to have the real author known ? 

A. — Undoubtedly. I was personally attacked, and if the name of the 
author could have been discovered, it would have relieved me at once. 
The charge was, that I had colluded with some one to give it to a friend 
under a fictitious name. 

Q. — Did you apply to Mr Pierpont to ascertain the author ? 

A. — I never asked him directly if he was the author of the prologue to 
which the prize was given. 

Q. — Will you state the conversation with him ? 

A. — Yes sir. I was very anxious to know the author, in order to relieve 
myself from unjust imputations. I applied to Mr Buckingham, as the con- 
fidential friend of the author, "J. James' Son." If he could be known all 
the slander would fall to the ground. A friend told me it was written 
by one in Mr Buckingham's house. To contradict this, and to clear our- 
selves, it was proposed that the Committee should sign a paper declaring 
they did not know the author. When it came to Mr Bailey, one of the 
Committee, he declined. He said he could not sign it, because he knew 
the author, and to his astonishment, he lived in the same house with him. 
That led me to believe Mr Pierpont was the author. 

Q.— -Did Mr Bailey then live in the house with Mr Pierpont ? 

A. — He boarded in his house at the time. 

Q. — Did you ascertain who was the author ? 



160 



A. — I am satisfied Mr Pierpont was the author. I met him in the mark- 
et place, and after stating- the difficulty I was in, and my wish to ascer- 
tain the author, I said to him, it is even said that you are the author. He 
replied, " Sir, I hav'nt written two lines of heroic verse these two years," 

Q. — Was the prologue written in heroic verse ? 

A. — Yes sir. In modern days it would pass for heroic verse — it had ten 
syllables in each line. 

Q. — Did Mr Pierpont know you were on the Committee against whom 
the charges were made. 

A. — Yes sir. That was the purpose of my applying to him, to relieve 
myself. I have no recollection of ever having spoken to him on the sub- 
ject from that time. I considered he chose to evade it. I understood his 
reply as a denial of the authorship, and though I believed him to be the 
author, I had no power to oblige him to come forward to relieve me. 

Q. — Do you know who was the author ? 

A. — The author is known as well as your existence, and yet you can't 
prove it. 

Q. — Did you ever have any reason to believe that any other person than 
Mr P. was the author. 
A.— Not the slightest. 
Cross-examined by Mr Washburn. 

Q. — Technically speaking, did the prologue come under the head of 
heroic poetry ? 

A. — Sir, I was excluded by early circumstances from the study of the 
ancient classics in the original. You must ask the scholars. I am no 
standard. 

Mr Washburn. — If you are not a standard of good poetry, we have none 
in the Commonwealth. 

Dexter. — I suppose you mean heroic verse, not heroic poetry? (to Mr 
Washburn.) 

Washburn. — Yes, you are right ; you were on the prize-Committee, and 
have the advantage of me in the technical terms. 
Dexter.— I learnt it there. 

Witness.— In common parlance, ten syllables to a line in poetry, make 
heroic verse. There is a great deal of heroic verse that is very unheroic 
poetry. The prologue, in this sense, was written in heroic verse. 

In answer to Mr Dorr. — The dealers in doggrel call every thing heroic 
that goes with ten syllables. Marmion is not heroic verse. In my opinion 
there was no piece given in to the Committee on that occasion that de- 
served a prize. I drew up a report to that effect, but the Committee con- 
sidered they were only to judge of the comparative merits, and we award- 
ed the prize to this as the least exceptionable. 

To Mr Gannett. — I considered the reply of Mr Pierpont a denial of the 
authorship. Johnson and Paley authorize denial of the authorship when 
an author chooses to conceal himself, and the inquirer has no right to 
ask him. As to the morality of it, I leave it to the author of the poem. 

Mr Gannett. — Did you consider it a denial or an evasion ? 

A — He didn't say he didn't write it, in so many words. His reply 
through me off the scent. I considered it at the time distinctly a denial. 
Afterwards, on reflection, it occurred to me that he might possibly have 
written it two years before. I never fully satisfied myself that Mr P. was 
the author, until I had it on the assertion of one now dead (Mr Bailey.) 

Cross-examined. — Mr Bailey wrote poetry, and once gained a prize on a 
similar occasion. The prologue, I am satisfied, was not his, and it was 
not in his handwriting. 

Mr Gannett. — The charge in this item against the pastor is denial. I 



161 



have got nothing but evasion. Do I rightly understand the witness that he 
testifies to evasion only ? 

A. — I testify to the conversation which I took for a denial. I give you 
the whole. The conversation was a week or two after the opening of the 
theatre. 

By the Moderator. — Should you feel justified, in your opinion as a lit- 
erary man, in denying your authorship of a production you wished not to 
have known as yours ? May not a literary man deny his authorship under 
such circumstances ? 

A. — Of the morality of such an act you must judge. I have never 
been placed in a situation to draw a line so closely between right and 
wrong. This tribunal must settle that point for themselves. 

By Mr Pierpont. — Where an author wished concealment, would anoth- 
er person have any right to require of him an avowal of his name ? 

A. — If such an author were applied to by a friend who he knew was 
subjected to the vilest attacks of the prostituted press, and had no means 
to justify himself from false imputations but by the disclosure of the 
true name of the author, I do think that if he were a man he would let it 
be known. That is the moral obliquity I complain of. 

Washburn. — How do you know that Mr Pierpont was aware at the time 
it was necessary that you should have the author's name ? 

A. — I can't but think it was known to him. All the circumstances 
prove it. The matter was notorious, and publicly discussed in the papers. 
He must have understood my object in applying to him. I never asked 
him to come to my relief by disclosing his name as the author. I put the 
question to him, and I considered as an author he meant to evade and 
deny it. 

In answer to an inquiry, whether such a denial was morally honest, 
witness says, — I have quoted a remark from Johnson that an author has a 
right to deny or evade what another has no right to ask. How sound it 
is in morals, this Council are the proper persons to judge. 

I do not know positively whether the hand- writing of the prologue was 
Mr Pierpont's. My attention was not called to it at the time. After- 
wards, on reflecting on it, I was satisfied it was his hand-writing, but 
from circumstances rather than recollection of the writing. I understood 
that the printer had destroyed the original. 

Mr Pierpont — If the real author had desired to conceal his name, 
would it not have been natural for him to procure a friend to copy it, rath- 
er than send it in his own hand-writing? 

A. — Perhaps so ; but I do not believe that in this case the real author 
could have used the hand-writing of a man who of all others was most 
anxious to conceal his connexion with the prologue, and prevent it being 
traced to him. 

To Mr Lothrop. — I do not recollect any local allusion in the poem to 
show if it had been written within two years. 

Mr Robbins. — If Mr Pierpont was the author, would he not have got 
another person to copy the poem ? 

A. — It is difficult to trace such an inquiry through acts and motives. 
I believe the author of that prologue did not think of the consequences 
should he gain the prize. The poem certainly did not deserve it. But 
when it was gained, he felt awkward to avow it, and hence became in- 
volved in difficulty from which he could not well extricate himself, and 
the Committee were left by him to suffer the consequences of his own 
act. I now consider the authorship definitely settled, though still not 



162 



avowed. The feelings connected with it have long since passed from my 
mind, and I regret to be compelled to revive the circumstances. I can 
only say that the author was not so kind to me as I should have been to 
him in a similar case. He got caught in a trap of his own setting — his 
own ability caught him, and I suppose he meant to get out of it as well 
as he could. It is for others to decide how far it is a moral question. 

In answer to Washburn. — I have obtained prizes for similar poems. 
Never before this transaction of the Mr James' son, did I send a poem 
without my name. After this, some discussion arose whether prizes in 
these affairs were given to the poem or the man, and one of the Commit- 
tee to test it, obtained several prizes under a fictitious signature. 

Washburn. — That was yourself. 

A. — You may infer it, but I never denied the authorship. 

The Moderator. — What is the code of morals among authors as to 
owning or concealing authorship ? Is Dr Johnson received as an author- 
ity to that point, where he says, " if asked whether I wrote what I do not 
wish to own, I shall say no." 

A. — I can only refer each man to his own moral sense to decide. It 
seems to me a very delicate line to draw between right and wrong. But 
if a concealed author sees a friend suffering unjustly on his account, and 
he knew he could relieve him by an avowal I think he ought to come for- 
Avard, especially when applied to. 

To Mr Gannett. — My belief of the hand writing of the prologue is not 
founded on recollection of the original, distinct from the circumstances, 
but all together. I have no doubt in my own mind that the hand writing 
confirmed my suspicion of the author. 

Mr Gannett. — Was it Mr Pierpont ? 

A. — From all the circumstances I have no doubt it was. I was familiar 
with his hand. It did not strike me at the time — my attention was not 
called to it. The hand writing was not disguised. I am very clear in 
my own conviction. My impression is, it was Mr Pierpont's hand 
writing. 

To Mr Dexter. — The signature of J. James' son, led to some reference 
to Mr P. I understood. His father's name was James, and his is John. 
The meaning might be, J—, son of James. 

Wednesday Forenoon, July 14, 1841. 
After prayer and reading of the Journal. 

Isaac Parker, Sworn. Was one of the standing committee of the 
church in 1839, at the time the reading of notices from the pulpit was 
under consideration. One day in church, the sexton brought a notice to 
my pew, and inquired if it should be read. I told him no. He went back 
to Mr Pierpont with the message, as I supposed, and presently afterward I 
heard the notice read from the pulpit by Mr Pierpont. It was for an Abo- 
lition meeting. The committee were reluctant to have this duty of de- 
ciding upon the notices imposed on them. It was the desire of Mr Pier- 
pont to relieve him from the responsibility which had led to some dissatis- 
faction. I was certainly surprised to hear the notice read at the time. 

Cross-Examined. — I mean to say that after Mr Pierpont was requested 
not to read the notice, he immediately did read it. Mr Everett, another 
of the Committee was in the house at the time. I do not know what mes- 
sage the sexton gave to Mr Pierpont. I called on Mr Pierpont in relation 
to introducing notices unpleasant to the standing committee and the So- 
ciety. I did not call officially, but chiefly to ascertain his views. The 



163 



committee did not decline taking the duty of deciding as to the notices, to 
relieve Mr Pierpont, but were reluctant to do so, lest it might seem an 
assumption. The committee had no official action upon it. 

Pays on Perrin, Sworn. — Has belonged to the Society for thirty years, 
and is a Proprietor ; has been so except a short time at first. When Mr 
Pierpont was settled, the Society was united and prosperous. Mr Pier- 
pont was strong with the Society. He was conscious of it, and he spoke 
of his strength with his Society ; but he unfortunately used it to break 
the Society to pieces. This was done by introducing topics and alterca- 
tions which caused a falling off of the Society and much dissatisfaction. 
A committee was appointed to call on him and remonstrate. Unfortu- 
nately Mr Pierpont regarded it as dictation, but it had some good effect. 
He discontinued these topics ; afterwards he was out of health, and had 
leave to go to Europe. On his return, he preached a discourse apologetic 
in many respects, and which seemed to give general satisfaction. We 
received it as an assurance that the former causes of dissension should not 
be revived. In a short time, however, the former course was renewed, 
and the difficulties revived. 

Being asked to point out how the discourses gave offence, whether it 
was the doctrine, he says, it was the matter, manner, temper and applica- 
tion which made the uneasiness ; not his treating of these subjects, tem- 
perance, abolition, &c. so much as the matter and manner. I have felt it 
myself, though having no connexion whatever with those subjects. 

There were complaints of his devotion to other pursuits besides his min- 
isterial duties, and particularly his enlisting in most of the new agitations 
of the day. On his return, had he pursued a conciliatory course, no op- 
position would have arisen. All were disposed to forget what was passed. 
I believed they were errors of the head, and not of the heart ; and had 
there not been, on his part, a revival of the unfortunate topics, the Society 
would have continued united. 

Cross-Examined. — The topics complained of, were, imprisonment for 
debt, temperance, abolition, &c. It was not the subject, but the temper, 
the feeling, the irritating circumstances attending his manner and appli- 
cation. He preached on these subjects before and after he went to Eu- 
rope. I was glad to hear him preach on temperance, but disliked the 
manner he treated it. I have no interest in the traffic in liquors, and never 
had any. I had no objection to hear temperance introduced, but I dis- 
liked his strong allusions ; the worm, still, &c, 

In answer to the Moderator. — I do not believe that the introduction of 
temperance into the pulpit would have created division in the Society, if 
done with a christian spirit and temper. This was not by any means the 
chief cause of dissatisfaction. All the causes put together produced a 
chief cause of dissatisfaction: his manner when called on and expostu- 
lated with, gave great offence. He called it dictation and assumption. 

Personally, I respect Mr Pierpont, and like his preaching, aside from 
these defects. I should like to worship with the Society constantly. I 
am satisfied now that there never can be a reconciliation. 

Henry Bass, Sworn. — Have been a member of the society sixtyfive 
years. Now hold the office of Deacon. I have held it for many years. 
I was on the committee to call on Mr Pierpont in 1838. We waited on 
him and discussed the subject three evenings. We stated the opinions 
and feelings of the Society plainly. Mentioned the allusions in his ser- 
mons to anti-masonry, anti-slavery and various topics. Do not recollect 
that temperance was then named. Many of Mr Pierpont's sermons I have 



164 



heard with delight. Others with great uneasiness, and should have been 
glad to have left the church, if I could have done so with propriety. In 
our interview, Mr Pierpont inquired if our mission extended to a. disso- 
lution of the connexion. He sard if it did, it would save a great deal of 
discussion. We told him that was not our object. He did not say wheth- 
er he would go. Mr Pierpont said perhaps he had taken too great an in- 
terest in the topics of the day ; if he had, he should regret it as much as 
any one in the Society. Mr Pierpont made a written communication to 
the committee. We reported to the Society. It was generally satisfac- 
tory. The Society were content to wait and see the effect. The conduct 
of Mr Pierpont, I think, did not alter. The dissatisfaction has gone on 
increasing ever since, and the communications of Mr Pierpont have ever 
since had a direct tendency to aggravate and increase the dissension. 

I have never had any dissatisfaction as to temperance. I never heard 
a sermon I personally disliked on that topic. My feelings were hurt on 
abolition. I have brothers and sisters in Louisiann, and lost a son there, 
and it pained me to have my minister to join in a course which I believed 
was scattering firebrands, arrows and death among my friends at the 
South. 

I called on Mr Pierpont and remonstrated with him. He wished me to 
state the particulars, and call again. I did not call again, because I could 
not enter into a debate with him. I am still a member ; I have been 
tempted to leave several times, but have not. I do not like to be driven 
away from my old place of meeting. I could not feel at home anywhere 
else. His sermons have not seemed adapted to occasions. Not suffi- 
ciently serious. Either he has grown more liberal or I more orthodox 
than formerly. Last Sunday he preached a sermon about his opinion of 
Mr Parker's discourse at South Boston. He said some one had asked his 
opinion of it I thought it inappropriate to the pulpit. The other Sun- 
day, though it was the fourth of July, I did not expect to hear an oration 
upon National Independence. 

Previous to that, we had a sermon on communion day, very inappropri- 
ate. The subject and manner were complained of to Mr Pierpont. 

Cross-Examined. — The interview with Mr Pierpont by the Committee 
was generally satisfactory. Do not recollect that the subject of indelica 
cy in his sermons was mentioned. Mr Childs was on the Committee. 
From that time to November following, I have no recollection of any com- 
plaint being made of his sermons. Mr Pierpont received the committee 
with cordiality. He has always treated me with courtesy. In his private 
parochial relations, I have no fault to find. 

Mr Pierpont. — Do you recollect that in my sermon on the fourth of Ju- 
ly, I alluded to the subject as being appropriate to Sunday, in connexion 
with something higher than National Independence, independence of 
mind and spirit ? 

Answer. — You did so. 

In answer to Mr Lothrop. — As to the effect of Mr Pierpont's remaining 
or leaving, I am unable to give an opinion. I have been told that if he 
goes away, the Society will be broken up. If he remains, I know most of 
those opposed to him will leave. I cannot say how many. If he left, the 
difficulty in agreeing upon another clergyman would come from the friends 
of Mr Pierpont. They would think they could not find another equal to 
him. They are attached to Mr Pierpont ; a majority of them peculiarly 
so. I mean of those attached to Mr Pierpont who still worship here. 
Many of them are not proprietors. I do not know how many are situated 
as 1 am. 



165 



To the Moderator. — My objection to his communion sermons was their 
inappropriateness to the occasion. I disliked the sentiments of Mr Park- 
er's sermon very much, and was sorry to hear him approve them. 

To Mr Gannett. — I am of opinion that Mr Pierpont's ministry has been 
injured by his attention to other subjects. I have no complaint as to his 
parochial duties. I know not and have no conception of any grounds for 
supposing Mr Pierpont to be guilty of impurity of mind. I never noticed 
anything of the kind. I cannot think that his usefulness has been im- 
paired from that cause. Some have complained of indelicacies. I never 
had anv difficulty on that score. 

To the Moderator. — As to the effect of such allusions upon the youth- 
ful mind, I am not able to say. It had no effect on me. I should not 
think that a bad influence had been exerted upon the minds of the young 
here, from any such cause. 

TESTIMONY FOR MR PIERPONT. 

[A witness being about to leave town, Mr Washburn had leave 
to introduce him here.] 

Charles Ellis was called to state whether Mr Crane was authorized 
to say he is opposed to Mr Pierpont ? 

Ans. — If he would date back to 1838, he has a right to say so : but 
since then, he (Mr Ellis) had not been opposed to Mr Pierpont. In 1833 
a motion was made to reduce his salary to $1500. I think Mr Crane 
made it. I moved to reduce it to $2000, the first having been rejected. 
I stated my reasons. I disliked the placing $200 more on his salary, than 
that of his predecessor, Mr Holley, who had $2000. It was done when 
Mr Pierpont was settled, on the ground that his expenses could not be 
met without it. I wished to get back the $200, and confine it to $2000. 
The committee reported $2200, and I moved to reduce it to $2000. Mr 
Henry Atkins voted for Mr Pierpont at that time. 

Mr Atkins said to me just before the last annual meeting, he wanted 
me to be at the annual meeting, they were going to turn Mr Pierpont 
away. I asked what new difficulty had occurred. He said, he has taken 
up this temperance business, and is going to legislate for us. I stated 
that I should not have gone if he had not called upon me, but I thought I 
should now, and he must not be surprised if I voted the other way. I 
was never particularly pleased with the preaching of Mr Pierpont; but 
they have no right now to rank me with his opponents. I have worship- 
ped at Hollis St. Church since last September. Occasionally hear Mr 
Parker. Have made several applications to hire a pew here. Have ask- 
ed Henry Atkins. He said he Avould not take a thousand dollars for his 
pew. He told me he had left. I asked Mr Viall, partner of Mr Atkins. 
He was unwilling. He occasionally attended here. They were unwil- 
ling to have their pews occupied. One of the opponents of Mr Pierpont, 
Mr Cushing, called on me and offered me a pew, after I had partially en- 
gaged another. Mr Stephen Child put me in the way of getting a pew, 
though he said he would not let his. 

Cross- Examined. — I was a proprietor when Mr Pierpont was settled. I 
ceased to be about twelve years ago. I was then opposed to Mr Pierpont. 
I was not partial to his preaching. There were two or three occurrences 
that made me hostile, rather bitter. Sixteen years ago I was sick ; lay 
on my back a long time. Mr Pierpont was very attentive to me. He 
asked my wife, once, if she was aware how sick I was; and advised call- 
ing in another physician. Dr Coffin called soon after and expressed alarm 



166 



at my pulse. My wife stated what Mr Pierpont had said about calling m 
other physicians. Dr Coffin was the editor of a paper, and he came out 
with an attack on Mr Pierpont. The next time I went to church, I hap- 
pened to stand a moment in the aisle, when the sexton came to me and 
said Mr Pierpont desired me to take my seat immediately. I then sup- 
posed he attributed the attack in Dr Coffin's paper to me, and took this 
way to show it. Sometime after I saw him, and learnt that he never saw 
the piece, nor heard of it. I then attributed my dislike to prejudice, and 
concluded I had done him injustice. 

Dexter. — Why did you dislike his preaching ? 

Ans. — I cannot define it. I cannot tell why. 

Ques. — Can you not state your reasons for disliking Mr Pierpont's 
preaching ? 

Ans.— I cannot state it any closer. It did not suit me. 
Ques. — W-is it because it was not interesting ? 
Ans.— No. 

Ques. — I am serious in wishing to know the reason of the change in 
opinion you speak of. 

Ans. — I have stated it as distinctly as I am able. 

I have heretofore thought that the parish had a right to prescribe rules 
to the pastor, but I have since changed my mind. I have heard him 
preach on a good many subjects which I may have thought had better not 
been introduced into the pulpit. It was not food for me. I preferred Mr 
Holley, his predecessor. The reasons for my changing are, I supposed I 
had been biased by prejudice. In 1838, I took ground for him because 
they would not allow him to preach temperance. 

Quesi — Have you received any personal favor from Mr Pierpont. 

Ans. — He procured a situation for my son in 1839. That did not 
change my opinion. The only thing he did, he gave my son a letter to go 
to Charleston, in 1839. My opinion is not now changed of Mr Pierpont. 
I think I did not tell Mr Atkins that I would not vote with him against 
Mr Pierpont, because Mr Atkins would not vote with me on a former oc- 
casion. Some of his opposers, as I understand, handed him money for 
preaching what they now condemn. 

Being cross-questioned as to his knowledge of the fact, says he under- 
stood Mr Weld gave him money for preaching a sermon or anti-masonry. 
It was after he preached it. 

W. W. Clapp, called by Washburn. — Mr Pierpont has contributed but 
one piece for my paper, since he returned from Europe. It was April 13, 
1838. Two thirds of a column of poetry. As frequently as 1 met Mrs 
Pierpont, she said I must be patient, he was taking notes ; the letters 
would come by and by. This was said for three or four months after 
he left home. 

In answer to the Moderator. — No distinction was ever made or explained 
to me as to the difference between his writing familiar letters to his friends 
and writing them for me for publication, as he had agreed. 

The Moderator. — Were you not satisfied that he might have fairly 
changed his mind, and concluded not to write from indisposition to do so, 
or finding it, from health and inclination, more difficult than he had sup- 
posed. 

— I do not know why he should engage to write and not do so. 



167 



TESTIMONY RESUMED FOR THE PROPRIETORS. 

Henry Atkins, Sworn. Had a conversation with Charles Ellis, after 
Mr Pierpont's first communication to the Society. Mr E. is rather an ex- 
centric man. Likes to take the opposite side of most things. He is rath- 
er changeable. Has been one of the bitterest enemies Mr P. ever had. 
He lost his father, and was displeased that the note was not read, at his 
death. 

Washburn objects to this inquiry. [Question waived.] 

Witness. — Mr Ellis was an opponent of Mr P. till he moved into the 
country. Have heard him very recently say he wished he would go 
away if he would take Parker's Church and exchange places. I refused 
to let my pew, until that difficulty should be settled. It is my intention 
to return, if the difficulty is settled. I don't recollect refusing my pew to 
Mr Ellis. Do not remember he ever wanted it. 

Cross-examined. — Have attended this church nineteen years. Left 
about a year or more in my attendance. 

Mr Pierpont. — Do you not reccollect saying to Rev. Mr Thompson 
that you would follow me if I left. 

A. — Mr Thompson exchanged with you on one occasion, and dined with 
me as usual. It was in J 839. I was not then decided in my course. 
The subject of the disturbance came up. Mr T. expressed great regard 
for you. I reciprocated it, and I think I said, I did not know but I should 
leave if you left. In fact I did not make up my mind to oppose you, un- 
til you came out with the documents taunting us to dismiss you. You 
then said the parish as a Corporation invited you to settle, and as a Cor- 
poration they could dismiss you to night if they pleased. I was then dis- 
posed to take you at your word, but you did not go. 

Mr Pierpont — Did you not on another occasion express a wish for me 
to remain ? 

A. — What, in regard to the tub of butter ? On one occasion one of 
your friends was in my store expressing great regard for you. To test it, 
I asked him how much he felt, and told him if he would share it, I would 
send you a tub of butter if he would send another or the like value. He 
declined. 

Mr Pierpont. — Did you not express your satisfaction at my Sermon in 
relation to the decease of your mother, and request a copy of that part of 
it, and did I not furnish it ? 

A. — You did. I was gratified with your notice of the decease of my 
mother, and meant to express my thanks to you. 

My mother died in April, 1839. I have since left Mr Pierpont, think- 
I could be better satisfied elsewhere. 

To the Moderator. — I was more particularly disgusted with the manner 
in which he treated us, the people of the Society, in his documents. 

To Mr Pierpont. — I told you I disliked particularly your manner of 
saying to the Society that they had invited you to come, and might invite 
you to go. 

To the Moderator. — I was dissatisfied with his interference in getting 
up the fifteen gallon law. It was not on that ground alone I was dissatis- 
fied. That was one of the causes. There were others as prominent. 

Mr Joshua Crane called again. Knows of no agreement to keep the 
pews empty rather than have them occupied by Mr Pierpont's friends. 
His pew had been so occupied. 

Mr Dexter here rested in the testimony for the Proprietors, reserving the 
right to call some other witnesses hereafter, if necessary. All the docu- 



168 



ments were to be considered as in the case. He also put in a itcent cor- 
respondence, April, 1841, published in the Liberator, between Mr Pier- 
pont and J. P. Rogers, in relation to the controversy between Mr P. and 
his Society. 

Boston, 20th March, 1841. 

My thrice honored because persecuted friend ! I give you joy? You now 
know, if you never before knew, the full force of that ' Beatitude' — ' Blessed 
are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake ? ! You and I do not 
belong to the same sect — and 1 rejoice that we do not ; for if we did, we might 
not know, practically and experimentally, how very feeble — how much like 
burning tow strings, are the ties of sect, when they are pulled upon by the 
strong sympathies of humanity — the attractions of the Christian spirit. 

I congratulate you ! I almost wish somebody would excommunicate me. 
Well — it may be said that has been done by the great majority of the Christian 
church in the country, and in all Christendom. As a Unitarian, I am, in effect 
excommunicated from the christian fold. But this was done so long ago, and 
I have lived and labored so long and so happily as a Unitarian, that the old 
excommunication — like one run of the small pox — has got about worked out 
of the constitution, and 1 have become liable, if properly exposed, to take it 
again. And it is altogether possible that I may soon have to take it again. I 
am to be brought again before a council, to answer for my overt acts of 
treason against the majesty of Rum. 

If those, our adversaries, only knew how much they exalt us, the poor vic- 
tims of their spiritual pride, in your case, and puise pride in mine, we need 
ask for them, I think, no severer penalty. But of this exaltation, they have 
no conception. Those things are hidden from 'the wise and prudent of this 
world.' They think, poor souls • that they are making us unhappy ! That's 
all they know about it. 

J rejoice, my dear sir, to see that your spirit is not broken, though your con- 
nexions with the Plymouth Church is. They excommunicate you ! No — 
You have long since excommunicated them ! that is, you have placed yourself 
in a position in which you have nothing, or very little, in common with them: 
where there was really no communion between your spirit and their spirits. 
Well, let them put you out of their synagogue, and think that, in so doing, 
they are doing God service — as indeed they are ! — though in a way that they 
think not of. Let them excommunicate you ! There is another church, of 
which I verily believe you are a member, in full communion, and — '■inregular 
standing ' I was going to add : but regular standing is standing according to 
rule, (regula) — thus understood, I imagine your standing is not very regular — 
if we t;ike the rules of any ' visible church' on earth as the criterion ; but of 
the true church, I believe you are a member — i. e. the church of the true and 
the devoted — the daring — the trusting — the tried and the approved. Faint not, 
my dear friend, fail not. No — your spirit cannot faint — the flesh may be weak, 
but the spirit is strong So will it be, while you are persecuted. Though 
your outward man perish, yet your inward man — which is all the man that is 
worth our concern — your inward man will gain strength, day by day. 

My dear friend, may God bless you ! He surely will ! 

J. PIERPONT. 

Concord, March 25, 1841. 
My Very Dear Friend : — Your kind letter of the 20th, I have received. 
I have long been your admirer, and, since personal acquaintance with you, 
have been proud of the notice you have shown me. I love you now, and here 
promise to admire yon no longer. It was indeed kind in you to send me your 
consolatary, congratulatory greeting, at a time when you would naturally 
suppose me most in want of it. 1 value it none the less highly from the fact 
that somehow I have scarcely thought myself persecuted at all, by this little 
excommunication. I feel the excitement and fervor of the battle we are 
waging, and a considerable sword-cut would hardly give me a smarting sensa- 
tion. This excommunication really strikes me as resting on my 'old organ- 



169 



ized anti-slavery/ and not on myself. It is evident what it is for. It does not 
in the least dishonor me. I am not alone. I am in no business, where want 
of patronage or of reputation would impair my living or my prosperity. I have 
given up my business. I am the slave's advocate, and my clients can't be 
made to forsake me, or withdraw their patronage. I have not a particle of 
reputation to forfeit, having been for some time past ' of no reputation ' So 
that I am not persecuted. I endure nothing, — have no cross to bear, — never 
enjoyed life half so well, even when I am sick. Still your letter was a great 
cordial. It gave my heart a spring and even my pulse a little vivacity. 1 will 
not try by words to tell you how 1 feel about it. Will you allow me to publish 
it? If I should, it would not be to get myself honor, but to let my old 
Plymouth friends know that my position is not regarded every where as they 
regard it. They know your name there, and though your opinion would be 
no proof of my orthodoxy , it would embarrass them in their effort at despising 
my anti-slavery character. 

I have done sympathising (condolingly) with you, in your Hollis street 
vexations. They are opportunities, for which you should bless God. What 
interest they impart to your life 1 How dull ordinary Boston pulpit-life, com- 
pared to yours, since this battle ! How dull would your own even be, to 
return to ! You are charged with defence of great principles. ' Felix oppor- 
tunitate !' Make the utmost of it. And when the history is read, let it not 
be seen that he omitted this or that glorious chance, — or left; this or that capital 
point unattained. 

The Lord be with you, my dear friend, and sustain you, and enable you to 
fight eminently His battles in the earth. Oh, the misfortune of living in the 
stagnation of this world's peace. And oh ! for faith in Christ to enable us to 
fight acceptably these heart-stirring, heart-sustaining, soul-expanding conflicts ! 
With a heart full, I am 

Your friend and brother, 

N. P. ROGERS. 
P, S Allow me to add, in my own defence, ' in haste.' 

Boston, 5th April, 1841. 
Well, my dear Excommunicated ! I think that neither of us wishes or can 
wish any thing worse to fall upon those ' who despiteful ly use us and persecute' 
us, than the knowledge would bring upon them of all the good they are doing 
us, and of the satisfaction that we derive, as well as exaltation, from all they 
do to put us down, and stop our mouths; — stop them, but not with bread. 
Poor, dear persecutors ! — they should have known us better. Instead of trying 
to thrust us out, they should have bought us in. Instead of starving, ihey 
should have stuffed us. They should have known — 

' That Satan now is wiser than of yore, 

And tempts by making rich — not making poor.' 

They should have offered me an interest in a distillery of New England rum, 
and you a share in a sugar plantation. There's no knowing what that would 
have done! You and 1 might then have been bound together by very differ- 
ent ties from those that bind us now. 1 might have bought your mohisses for 
my distillery, and you my rum for your negro drivers ; — to screw their bowels 
up to the whipping point. Thus might you and I have been brought into the 
relation and sympathy of ordinary business friendship, and held together by 
silver chains; and the patriarchs of the south and the fiends of freedom at the 
north might, for all that we might have done, have met together; and the 
distillers and the cold water men have kissed each other; — Temperance and 
Slavery might have billed and cooed 'like sucking doves,' and motherchurch 
might have looked benignantly on, and have pronounced her benedic- 
tion upon the bonds of matrimony, that of the twain had made one flesh. 
But pro-drunkenness and pro-slavery took other counsel, and it will probably 
prove to them the counsel of Ahithopel. They thought they could bring us 
into straits— that they could hush our crying, by frightening us. Blood of 
22 



170 



John Rogers, of Smithfield memory ! — that any body should even think of stop- 
ping thy current by threatening to let thee out of the veins of one of his descend- 
ants ! Ah, the children of this world have not, in this particular instance, been 
quite so wise as the children of light. 

Now, don't understand me, my friend, as meaning to say, in sober earnest- 
ness, that either of us could have been bribed, either by ' rum,' or ' negroes,' 
to hold his peace upon the sins of drunkenness and drunkard-making, slave- 
catching, slave-selling, and slave-whipping. I only mean to suggest that if 
any thing cou'd have done it, that might; for most men are more easily sedu- 
ced than scared — bribed than bullied — purchased into the wrong than persecu- 
ted out of the right. * Who shall sepaiate us from the love of Christ ? Shall 
persecution, or nakedness, or famine, or the sword ?' No, these things do but 
bind the closer to him all who really love him, and who labor to serve him 
by serving their fellow men in the spirit in which he served them. 

You ask me to let you publish my letter, congratul iting you upon your good 
fortune in having been excommunicated. Really, I don't know what I said, 
or what to say. I kept no copy of the letter, and as I wrote not to the Editor 
but to the man, I suspect that it would not make much of a figure in the col- 
umns of a newspaper, or do much for my ' honor and glory' as a literary man. 
But, if it will do you any good, print it, though in writing it I may have done 
such violence to grammar as to have knocked out all the i's of Orthography, 
and broken every bone in Syntax. I am not so hard pushed yet, but that lean 
bear a few more reproaches for meddling with exciting topics. But if you 
print, pray do it at once. ' If it bo done, 'twere well that 'twere Hone quickly ;' 
for next week, 1 am again to be brought before a council to answer to my overt 
acts of treason against the majesty of Rum ; and if 1 am to be hanged soon, I 
should like to see all my sins of this sort set forth in black and white before 
the cap is pulled down over my eyes. But if you print my letter, I think you 
should, also, print yours in reply. 1 don't know that you have kept a copy 
of yours, nor do I think you have ; so I enclose it, praying that you will remit 
it to me, for preservation, whether you print it or not. 

How do you sleep, my poor excommunicated friend ? Are you not gored 
every night, in vision, by papal bulls ? ' At the noise of the thunder' of the 
Plymouth church, have not all your slumbers £ ha*ted away?' Do any of 
your old friends know you now, when you show — if you ever dare to show — 
yourself in public ? When you 'go out to the gate through the city, when 
you prepare your seat in the street, do the young men see you and hide them- 
selves, and do the aged arise and stand up, ? Do your vital organs perform their 
functions as they were wont ? Do you masticate well what little you can get to 
eat ? or do ' the grinders cease because they are few ?' — O, my friend, what a 
sad thing it is to be excommunicated from the Orthodox church that is in 
Plymouth, New Hampshire! But, my dear sir, you'll get over it. Whether 
the church will, or not, is another question. 

Your friend and fellow servant, 

JNO. PIERPONT. 

Washburn inquired if Mr Dexter proposed to address an argument to 
the Council. 

Dexter replied he should reserve his remarks in the opening, until the 
evidence was in on the other side. 

Washburn objected to this, as unusual. After much conversation, it was 
moved by Mr Elliot, that the opening should be omitted on both sides, and 
after all the evidence was in, there should be a closing argument on both 
sides. This motion was finally adopted. 

Dexter objected to this, as a surprize upon the Proprietors. He had not 
stated his views in the opening, intending to do so after the evidence was 
all in. Had he been apprized of this course, beforehand, he should not 
have waived his opening, but if this vote was adhered to, he should be 
saved some personal labor, and would not object to it on his own account. 



171 



Mr Gannett could not consent to any proceeding of which either side 
might say of it, it was unjust. 

The vote was finally reconsidered, with the understanding that Mr Dex 
ter should be heard. 

Adjourned till 9 o'clock, Thursday morning. 
Thursday Morning, July 15th, 1841. 

Opened with prayer. 

The Moderator announced to Mr. Dexter, that the Council were 
ready to hear his remarks. 

Mr. Dexter said, that upon consideration, he had decided not to 
avail himself of the privilege yesterday granted, to address the Coun- 
cil at this stage. Whatever he might now offer would certainly not 
be an opening, since the evidence on his side had been already put 
in. As an argument, it seemed to him, to be manifestly improper, 
unless, as he had expected, he could be heard after the whole testi- 
mony, upon which only an argument would be founded, had been 
heard by the Council. He hoped he should cause no loss of time, 
the other side having been yesterday informed, that he would make 
no remarks, this morning. 

Washburn said, he would proceed with his testimony, following 
the example of the other counsel, in not introducing his case with 
any opening upon the facts. 

Dexter, wished to be first allowed to call Dea. Bass, in explanation 
of some testimony of yesterday. 

Deacon Bass took the stand. Mr. Pierpont preached a sermon 
on the occasion, if I remember right, of the refusal by the Mayor 
and Aldermen to allow the use of Faneuil Hall, for an Anti-Slavery 
Meeting, on the petition of Dr. Wm. E. Channing, and others. It 
was the most anti-slavery sermon, I ever heard. The first part, .-av- 
ing a few paragraphs, was, perhaps, not objectionable. It was 
afterwards printed. 

I should think it was longer, as delivered, than as printed. I should 
infer that in delivering the sermon, Mr. Pierpont extemporized, 
in some parts, though I do not know it. The delivery occupied an 
hour, but I read to myself, (not aloud) in twenty minutes. 1 don't 
remember any thing in the sermon, as preached, which I did not find 
in print, but I judge parts were not printed from the length. He 
spoke very rapidly and under great excitement. It excited the peo- 
ple very much. 

One of the complaints of the Committee of 1838, was this sermon. 
One of the gentlemen told Mr. Pierpont, that he expected, owing to 
Mr. Pierpont's excitement, to have the sermon, if not the great bible, 
thrown at his head, as he was sitting under the pulpit. 

In reply to a question put yesterday by the Scribe. — I should think 
not more than half a dozen proprietors, would leave the Society, in 
case of Mr. PierponVs leaving. 

[The Witness spoke in a very low tone of voice, and Mr. Dex- 
ter repeated his words to the Council, as he proceeded, Mr. Pierpont 
said he understood Mr. Dexter, in repeating, to make the witness 
say, relative to the extemporizing, "In fact I know he did." Mr. 



172 



Dexter said that he repeated 3 in all he said, the witnesses own words, 
Mr. P. did not understand the witness to use those words. Dexter in 
answer to his own request, was corroborated by the Scribe, in say- 
ing that he had uniformly repeated the words of the witness. Mr. 
Pierpont wished witness to say whether he did mean to be under- 
stood that he knew that in this anti-slavery sermon, he had extempor- 
ized? The witness, was understood in reply, to say, that he did not 
know it, but inferred it. Mr. Pierpont disclaimed intending to re- 
flect upon Mr. Dexter's mode of repeating after the witness.] 

Washburn said, he would first call the evidence to the point of 
the copyright, and here read the copyright to the American First 
Class Book, taken out by Mr. Fowle. 

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, to wit: 

Disxrict CxjEhk^s Office 
BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the twenty-third day of June, A. D. 
1823, and in the forty-seventh year of the independence of the United States 
of America, William B. Fowle, of the said District, has deposited in this 
office the title of a book, the right whereof he claims as Proprietor, in the 
words following, to wit : — " The American First Class Book ; or, Exercises 
in Reading and Recitation : selected principally from Modern Authors of 
Great Britain and America ; and designed for the use of the highest Class in 
publick and private schools. By John Pierpont, Minister of Holhs-street 
Church, Author of Airs of Palestine, &c." In conformity to the Act of the 
Congress of the United States, entitled, t; An Act for the encouragement of 
learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors 
and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned:" and 
also to an Act, entitled, "An Act, supplementary to An Act, entitled, An 
Act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies, maps, charts, 
and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times 
therein mentioned ; and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of design- 
ing, engraving, and etching historical and other prints." 

JNO. W. DAVIS, 
Clerk of the District of Massachusetts. 



TESTIMONY FOR THE PASTOR. 



Stephen Fairbanks, sworn. In 1831, Mr. Pierpont introduced 
to me a brother of his from Connecticut, and a Mr. Fowle, who were 
interested in a discovery for making wooden screws. This was in my 
line of business, that is, it come within the line of the business of our 
firm of Fairbanks &r Loring. 

They were beautiful screws. August 30th, 1831, one firm advanc- 
ed $1000, on the note of Sherman Pierpont, Elisha Fowle and John 
Pierpont, joint and several, on demand and interest. It was suppos- 
ed that we should be called upon for $2000, in all, and were to be in- 
terested one fourth part in the invention, if it was successful. We 
afterwards lent $1000 more, and took a note for $2027,33, being the 
new loan and amount of old note, and the interest. Another $1000 was 
lent, upon which John Pierpont was also liable, and a fourth thous- 
and upon which he was not liable. The note of $2027,33, was da- 
ted February 13th, 1832. That of $1000, in which Rev. Mr. Pier- 
pont was liable, was dated June 12th, 1832. 

By June 15th, 1833, it seemed evident to me, that the machinery 
could not be successful, and having a conversation with Mr. Pier- 
pont, he proposed to place in the hands of our firm a document trans- 
ferring to us his portion of interest under two copyrights. 

He handed to me two contracts. One was dated May 1st, 1830, 
between himself and Wm. B. Fowle, of the one part, and Richard- 
son, Lord and Holbrook of the other part, running seven years. The 
other contract was between the same parties and dated 28th Decem- 
ber, 1831, to expire 11th June, 1841. 

[Copies of these two contracts, having for their subjects, the one, 
the " American First Class Book," and the other, the " National 
Reader," were handed to Mr. Washburn, and read ; also the assign- 
ment, to Fairbanks, Loring and Company, of Pierpont's right under 
those contracts, in pledge for their claim against Pierpont, dated 15th 
June, 1833.] 

This Agreement by aDd between John Pierpont and William B. Fowle, 
on the one part, and Melvin Lord and John C. Holbrook, co-partners in 
business, under the firm of Richardson, Lord 6c Holbrook, on the second 
part — 

Witnesseth, that the said Pierpont and Fowle, being joint proprietors of 
the copy-right of a book entitled the American First Class Book, hereby 
grant, sell, and convey, to the said Lord $ Holbrook,, and iheir representa- 
tives, for the consideration hereinafter named, the entire and exclusive right 
and privilege of printing, publishing and vending the said work, for and 



174 



daring the full term of three years, from the date hereof— viz. May 1, 1830. 
The said Lord Holbrook, in their part, agree and engage for themselves, 
and their legal representatives, to pay to said Pierpont and Fowle, or their 
legal representatives, for the privilege aforesaid, the sum of ten cents on 
each and every copy which they or their legal representatives shall print, or 
cause to be printed during the continuance of this agreement, (except the 
provision hereinafter named,) said Lord <y Holbrook, or their legal represent- 
atives, to render a statement once in every six months — viz. on the first day 
of November and May in each year during the continuance of this agree- 
ment, of the number of copies they have printed or caused to be printed in 
the preceeding six months, and then to make payment therefor at the rate 
above stated, by two notes of equal amount— one payable to the said Pier- 
pont, and the other to the said Fowle, or their legal representatives, in six 
months. It is provided, however, and engaged on the part of the said Lord 

Holbrook, that the amount of copy-right in the term of three years afore- 
said, shall not be less than fifteen hundred dollars ■ and for the encourage- 
ment of the said Lord <^ Holbrook to print and sell as many as possible of 
the said work, it is provided on the part of said Pierpont and Fowle, that 
they will exact but eight cents instead of ten cents, on all that the said Lord 
(£• Holbrook shall print of the said work, over and above six thousand in 
each year of the continuance of this agreement. And they, the said Lord 
Holbrook, engage, at all times, during the continuance of this agreement, to 
keep the market fully supplied with the said book, and always to manufac- 
ture them in as good style in all respects a« heretofore. And it is further 
agreed and promised on the part of the said Pierpont and Fowle, that at the 
expiration of the present agreement, the said Lord Holbrook shall have 
the offer and refusal of a continuance to print and publish said book, exclu- 
sively, for the term of four years longer, at the same rate of copy-right as 
they are to pay for the term herein provided. It is provided, that in case of 
failure on the part of the said Lord Holbrook, or their representatives, to 
pay either or any of their notes at maturity, then this contract shall be null 
and void, to all intents and purposes. Triplicate copies of this agreement 
are made, a copy left in the hands respectively of the said Pierpont and 
Fowle, and one in hands of the said Lord i p y Holbrook. 

Boston, May 1st. 1830. (Signed) Melvin Lord, 

[Sealed.] John C. Holbrook, 

"Witness: John Pierpont, 

N. GrREENOUGH, "Wm. B. FOWLE. 

John Powers. 

It is hereby mutually agreeed by and between the subscribers; that the 
terms of copy-right privilege on the work named in the within Instrument, 
shall be charged, as to rate of premium and time of settlement, so as to 
stand as follows, the original terms of the contract notwithstanding, viz: 

On the first 5000 copies printed in any one year, the premium shall be as 
now, ten cents per copy: 

On any number over 5,000 and under 10,000, eights cents per copy. 

On any number over 10.000 and under 15,000, six " " 

On any number over 15,000 and under 20,000, four " " 

On any number over 20,000 two cents per copy. 

The time of settlement to be on the first of January, annually, and the 
first settlement on these terms to be made January 1st, 1834— including the 
year preceeding, and the contract to continue till the 22d June, 1837. 

[Sealed.] Melvin Loed. for himself 

Attest to Messrs. Lord and Pierpont's And J. C Holbrook. 

signatures : John Pierpont, 

Nathl. Greenough, Wm. B. Fowle. 

Alex. O. Blake. 

Witness to W. B. Fowle's signature:— W. W. Fessenden, N. Greenough. 



175 



This Agreement between John Pierpont and Wm. B. Fowle, of Bostotr, 
on the one part, and Melvin Lord and John C. Holbrook, co-partners in busi- 
ness, under the firm of Richardson, Lord if Holbrook, on the other part, wit- 
nessed that — Whereas the said Pierpont and Fowle are joint Proprietors of 
the copy right of a book entitled the National Reader, and are under obliga- 
tion to allow the said Lord if Holbrook to print and publish the said book till 
July 1st, 1832. which obligation, with other stipulations and conditions, is 
contained in a contract signed and agreed upon by the said Pierpont and the 
firm of Richardson if Lord, on the first day of July, 1827, now, for the fur- 
ther encouragement of the said Lord if Holbrook to extend the introduction 
and sale of the said book, and for the consideration hereinafter named, the 
said Pierpont and Fowle pledge themselves to allow the said Lord if Hol- 
brook, exclusively, to continue to print and publish the said book from the 
the said 1st July, 1832, until the eleventh day of June, 1841— and the said 
Lord 8f Holbrook agree to pay to the said Pierpont and Fowle, the sum of 
six and one quarter cents on each and every copy which they, the said Lord 
& Hulbrook, shall print, or cause to be printed, during the second term for 
which this agreement provides, excepting such editions as are hereafter pro- 
vided for to supply the demand on the waters of the Mississippi — said Lord 
if Holbrook to render a statement once in every six months, viz on the 1st 
day of January and July in each year during the agreement, of the number 
of copies they have printed in the preceeding six months, and then to make 
payment thereof at the rate above named, by two notes of equal amount at 
six months, one payable to the said Pierpont and the other to the said Fowle. 

It is hereby provided, moreover, that the said Lord if Holbrook may en- 
gage some responsible person west of the Alleghany mountains, as soon as 
practicable, to print said book, the said person to be restricted in the sale of 
the book to the waters which empty into the Mississippi and the lakes west 
of Pennsylvania, the sum which he shall pay for the privilege of printing 
said book, to be mutually agreed on by the parties to this instrument, and 
not to be determined or affected by the terms per copy provided for in the 
case of editions printed by and for the said Lord if Holbrook, east of the 
said mountains and waters, the sum and amount received for the said privi- 
lege to be divided, one third to the said Pierpont, one third to the said Fowle, 
and one third to said Lord if Holbrook, which latter third is to be in full 
compensation to the said Lord if Holbrook, for making the engagement and 
collecting and paying over the proceeds. And it is furthermore agreed, that 
all losses incurred by the said Lord & Holbrook, as agents in the transac- 
tions, shall be divided between the parties in proportion to the thirds they 
are to receive, unless the said losses shall arise from the evident, negligence 
or carelessness of the said Lord & Holbrook. Finally, the said Lord &, 
Holbrook engage that the book, wherever printed, shall be executed in every 
respect, as well as it has heretofore been printed and executed. Three 
copies of this agreement are made — one copy left in the hands respectively 
of said Pierpont and Fowle, and one in the hands of the said Lord & Hol- 
brook. 

In witness of this contract, the parties have set their hands and seals, for 
themselves and their legal representatives, this twenty-eighth day of Decem- 
ber, in the year eighteen hundred and thirty. 

John Pierpont, 

Witness: Wm P>. Fowle, 

N. Greenough. Melvin Lord, 

John C. Holbrook. 

It is hereby mutually agreed by and between the subscribers, that the 
terms of copy right privilege, on the work named in the within instrument, 
shall be charged, as to rate of premium, and time of settlement, so as to stand 
as follows, the original terms of the contract nowithstanding, viz. 



176 



On the first 10,000 copies printed in one year, the premium shall be at six 

cents per copy: 

On any number over 10 000 and under 15,000, five cents per copy. 
" " 15 000 and under 20 000, four " « 

" " 20 000 and under 25,000, three « " 

" " 25,000 and under 30,000, two " " 

" " 30,000 one cent per copy. 

The time of settlement to be on the first of April, annually ; and the first 
settlement of these terms to be made April 1, 1834, including the year pre- 
ceding. 

Jno. Pierpont, 

Witness to Pierpont and Lord's Wm. B. Fowle, 

signatures: Melvin Lord, for himself 

Nathl Greenough, And J. C. Holbrook. 

Alex. O. Blake. 

"Witness to W. B. Fowle's signature — Wm. W. Fessenden, N. Greenough. 



This Agreement, made the fifteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord 
one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three, between John Pierpont of Bos- 
ton, in the County of Suffolk, Clerk, of the one part, and Stephen Fairbanks, 
Henry Loring, and Henry P. Fairbanks, of said Boston, merchants, doing 
business under the firm of Fairbanks, Loring & Co. of the other part, Wit- 
nessed, 

That whereas, Sherman Pierpont and Elisha Tolles, of Farmington, in the 
State of Connecticut, and John Pierpont, of Boston, aforesaid, have, by a 
certain promissory note, dated February 14th, one thousand eight hundred 
and thirty-two, by them jointly and severally signed, promised the said Fair- 
banks, Loring & Company, to pay them or their order, the sum of two thou- 
sand and twenty-seven dollars, 33-100th dollars, on demand with interest. 

And whereas, by a certain other note, dated on the 12th day of June, of 
the same year, and by them jointly and severally signed, the same parties 
promised the said Fairbanks, Loring & Company, to pay them or their or- 
der, the further sum of one thousand dollars on demand with interest. 

And whereas the said John Pierpont has agreed to assign to the said Fair- 
banks, Loring ^ Company, as collateral security, certain contracts between 
himself and the parties herein next after to be named : — 

And whereas, by a certain agreement or indenture, made and executed on 
the 28th day of December, 1830, between the said John Pierpont and Wm. B. 
Fowle, of said Boston, of the one part, and Melvin Lord and John C. Holbrook, 
co partners in business, under the firm of Richardson, Lord &• Holbrook, on 
the other part, the said Lord $/• Holbrook promise to pay to the said Pierpont 
and Fowle, certain sums therein specified and provided for, in consideration of 
their, the said Lord «^ Holbrook's, being allowed to print and publish a cer- 
tain book called the National Reader, of the copy-right of which the said Pier- 
pont and Fowle are joint proprietors, which contract or indenture is varied or 
altered as to its terms by a subsequent agreement between the parties there- 
to appended to the contract aforesaid, and now making a part of the same ; 
— of which contract and subsequent agreement, a copy is hereunto annexed: 

And whereas by a certain other agreement or indenture, made on the first 
day of Mav, in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty, between the 
said John Pierpont and Wm B Fowle, of the one part, and the said Melvin 
Lord and John C Holbrook, partners in trade, under the firm of Richardson, 
Lord Holbrook, of the other part; the said Richardson, Lord Holbrook 
agree and promise to pay to the said Pierpont and Fowle, ceriain sums 
therein specified and provided for, in consideration of their being allowed to 
prim and publish a certain book cal'ed the American Firsi Class Buok, of the 
copy-right of which the said Pierpont and Fowle, are joint proprietors; which 
contract or indenture is varied or altered as to its terms by a subsequent 



177 



agreement between the parties thereto, appended to the eontract aforesaid, 
and now making a part, of the same ; of which contract and subsequent 
agreement, a copy is hereunto annexed. Now, therefore, in consideration of 
the premises, and of one dollar to him, the said Pierpont, in hand paid by 
the said Fairbanks, Loring & Company, before the ensealing hereof, the re- 
ceipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the said Pierpont does hereby grant, 
transfer and set over to them, the said Fairbanks, Loring & Company, and 
their assigns, the said indentures or contracts, copies whereof are hereby an- 
nexed, and all and singular the covenants and agreements of the said Rich- 
ardson, Lord & Holbrook therein contained, and all monies due or to become 
due or payable to the said Pierpont or his assigns, by reason thereof, and all 
benefit and advantage whatever, whether at law or in equity, to be had or 
derived therefrom. 

To have, hold, take and receive the contracts aforesaid, at the time of en 
sealing these presents ; and all monies due or payable to the said Pierpont or 
his assigns, from and after the lawful demand by said Fairbanks, Loring and 
Company, of the money promised to the said Sherman Pierpont, hlisha 
Tolles and John Pierpont in their joint and several notes aforesaid, and the re- 
fusal of the promises in said notes topay the same, to them the said Fairbanks, 
Loring and Company, and their assigns forever ; but upon trust to apply the 
same toward the payment of the monies mentioned and specified in the said 
promisory notes with the interest that may be due thereon ; with full power 
to ask, demand, sue for, recover, and receive the monies due, or to become 
due to the said Pierpont or his assigns, upon the said Indentures or either of 
them, until the said notes with the interest thereon, shall have been fully sat- 
isfied and paid : Provided, however, that when the said promisory notes shall 
have been fully paid, the said Fairbanks, Loring and Company, or their as- 
signs shall pay over any surplus monies, if any there may be and remain, 
which shall have been received from the said Richardson Lord and Holbrook, 
over and above what shall be sufficient to pay and satisfy the monies due 
upon said promisory notes : — and when the same shall be paid, then the said 
Fairbanks, Loring and Company or their assigns, shall re-convey the said 
Identures, agreements or contracts to the said John Pierpont, his executors or 
administrators. 

In witness whereof the parties have hereto set their hands and seals, the 
day and year first above written. S Fairbanks, 

Witness : Henry Loring-. 

G-. A. Fiske. H- P Fairbanks, 

John Pierpont. 

" This Indenture, made between John Pierpont and Charles Bowen, both 
of Boston, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, witnesseth, 

That, in consideration of five several promisory notes, one for eleven hun- 
dred and twenty dollars, and the other four for twelve hundred dollars each, 
dated on the twenty-seventh instant, one payable on the first day of January, 
1837— one on the eighth of December, 1837— one on the eighth of Decem- 
ber, 1838— one on the eigth of December, 1839. and one on the eighth of 
December. 1840— all of which are signed by said Bowen, and by him en- 
dorsed., — the receipt of all which by said Pierpont, is hereby acknowledged. 
The said Pierpont does hereby transfer, assign, and make over to said 
Bowen, his executors, administrators and assigns, the sole and exclusive 
right, to print, publish and sell, for the term of five years from December 
8th, 1835, the following books, of which the copy-right either the whole or 
in part, is in said Pierpont. To wit: 

The American First Class Book, 
The National Reader, 

The Introduction to the National Reader, and 
The Young Reader. 
23 



178 



The said Bowen being allowed to prim, publish and sell, either or all of 

said books, in as great numbers as he may think proper, with only the fol- 
lowing restrictions and limitations. 

First. The said Bowen shall continue to publish the said books, in the 
same good style of stock and workmanship, in which they have been pub- 
lished heretofore, by Richardson & Lord. Lord 6c Holbrook, and Carter 6c 
Hendee. 

Secondly. The said Bowen shall, at the close of each year, render to the 
said Pierpont, his heirs or assigns, a true account of the numbers of each of 
the above books that he has printed, or caused to be printed daring the year; 
and in case the numbers of either of the books printed during the two last 
years of the terms, shall exceed the ratio of increase during the three first 
years, then, for all each exce s the said Brown shall pay to said Pierpont, 
or his legol representatives, according to the same rate per copy as is ren- 
dered to said Pierpont by his contracts with Melvin Lord, or Lord 6c Hoi. 
brook. 

Thirdly. In case of the failure of the payment of either of the above- 
mentioned notes, at its maturijy, then this indenture granting permission to 
print, publish and sell the said books, or either of them, is, de facto, void. 

Fourthly. Whereas there is a question at law, between the said Pierpont 
and Wm. B Fowle, who are now joint proprietors of the copy right of the 
American F-rst Class Book — in respect to the interest which said Pierpont 
may have in said book after the 22J of June, 1837, it is hereby agreed that 
in ca^e it shall be decided that the whole right is in said Pierpont from and 
after that date, then the half of said right which is now in said Fowle, shall fol- 
low the half hereby assigned by Mr. Pierpont to said Bowen, the said Bowen 
paying to said Pierpont for the half in question, after the rate of two hun- 
dred and ninety dollars, payable at the end of each of the years provided for 
by this Indenture. 

Signed, sealed, and delivered at Boston, this 27th day of October, one thou- 
sand eight hundred and thirty-six. 

(Signed) Charles Bowen, 

Attest: John Pierpont. 

Alba Southard, 
D H. Williams. 

Whereas we have a lien by assignment, upon the three first named of the 
above books, we hereby consent to the above indenture, and make ourselves 
parties to the same, so far as our interest extends. 
Boston, this 27th day of October, 1836. 

(Signed) Stephen Fairbanks, 

Witness: Henry Loring, 

Geo. A. Fisk, Henry P. Fairbanks . 

William E. Pierce. 

Witness. There was nothing paid on either of our notes till 1835. 
In, say May 1834, I met Mr. Pierpont in Milk Street, when the sub- 
ject of the wooden screws was spoken of. I then felt satisfied, that 
the enterprize would not prove successful. Mr. Pierpont volunteer- 
ed to go to my store, and put his name on the last $1000 note, (the 
one, on which he was not liable.) I took his name, knowing no rea- 
son why I should not. He assigned to us his interest in another hook 
contract as security. This was understood to be the Introduction to 
the National Reader. 

I always left it. to Mr. Pierpont, to settle matters with the booksel- 
lers, and he used to bring me the proceeds, either in money or notes, 
as he chose. All my notes (that is notes due to witness from Mr. 
Pierpont) have been paid with interest. My books say that the last 



179 



payment was in 1838, by note, maturing on 8th and 11th of Decem- 
ber, 1839. The books were balanced in April, 1838. It was Mr. 
Pierpont's own proposition to give me the security. I should think 
principal and interest paid me by him was about $'4,600. The enter- 
prize of Sherman Pierpont, as to wooden screws, did fail. 

Cross-examined. All the $4,600, came in money and notes from 
the publishers, as I under-tood it. In November, 1836, Mr. Pierpont 
placed in our hands, in order that we might have full security, five 
notes, one, for $1120, the others for $1200 each. These notes were 
payable on considerable time, — we were fully paid up, before the last 
of the above notes had matured. The notes were of Charles Bowen, 
to his own order, I think. Mr. Pierpont gave them voluntarily, I 
supposed that John Pierpont was to have an interest in the wooden 
screws, if they succeeded. 

I worshipped in Hollis Street Church from, I should say, 1804, to 
the fall of 1 827, or spring of 1828. I left, after solemn consideration 3 
because I thought it my duty, as a christian. It was from a cause 
entirely fereign from Mr. P. or his family, either between me, or my 
family. It had nothing to do with Mr. P. or his preaching. 

[The witness said he did not wish to explain the reason, though he 
would do so, if it was requisite, but he having negatived the idea of 
its having any connexion with the subjects of the present enquiry, he 
was excused.] 

Witness. My leaving Hollis Street Church, might have been 
deemed by some, an error, in judgment, but I have never, as a chris- 
tian seen reason to repent it. The constant intimacy between Mr. 
Pierpont and myself, is full evidence, that there was no unpleasant 
feeling between us. 

[Some questions were put relative to the organization of Mr. 
Motte's Society, when the witness commenced giving some account 
of it, but was stopped by the Moderator, and confined to the ques- 
tion, whether Mr. Motte's Society originated in any dissatisfaction 
with Mr Pierpont. He answered to that, that if, it was so, he had 
no knowledge of it.] 

David H. Williams, sworn. I have been connected with Mr. 
Charles Bo wen for t he last ten years, and have been interested in Mr. 
Pierpont's books from the time they were purchased of the trustees 
of Carter and Hendee, successors of Richardson, Lord and Holbrook, 
which was 8th December, 1835. They were bought in the name of 
Charles Bowen. Mr. Fowle's " right to recieve copyright" for the 
National Reader and the American First Class Book,\vas purchased 
14th June, 1836. That of the Class Book was to continue from 8th 
Dec, 1835, to June 22d, 1837, that of the National Reader, June 
22d, 1841. 

[This phrase " right to receive copyright," was explained by the 
witness to mean the right to publish, or the premium on each copy 
published.] 

Mr. Pierpont's half was bought, on what we considered the same 
principle, 26th October, 1886, to continue five years, from 8th De~ 



.180 



eember, 1835. Our purpose has always been to pay Fowle and Pier- 
pont alike. We have always considered that we did. There are 
some peculiarities in the bargains with each, which may make them 

feel differently. 

Crossed-examined. I am unwilling to exhibit our contract with 
Mr. Pierpont. There are some secrets of our business embraced in 
it, but if it is deemed important, I must waive my opinion and wish, 
and produce it. Some time in 1829, we made another contract with 
Mr. Pierpont. Fowle was not a party to it. They were never mu- 
tual parties to the contracts made by each other with us. A second 
contract with Fowle had been made, relative to the Class Book, and 
Reader, before. The next one made after that, was one with Mr, 
Pierpont, for five years. The contract made with Mr. P. in 1839, 
was, for five years, I think, and was for Class Book and Reader both, 
I don't know that ever Mr. Fowle applied to us, to know what our 
contract with Mr. Pierpont was, unless he did last year when he 
made a contract. We always meant to have him understand that we 
treated both alike. 

We received a notice from Richard Fletcher, Esq. that if we 
traded with Fowle for copyright of American First Class Book, it 
would be at our peril, as Mr. Pierpont claimed it. 

[A paper was read, supposed by the witness to be a copy of Mr. 
Fletcher's communication, dated Aug. 4, 1840.] 

Boston,. Aug. 4, 1S40. 

David H. Williams, 

Dear Sir: — The Rev. Mr. Pierpont has put into my hands certain pa- 
pers for the purpose of asserting his right to the American First Class Book. 

He is the author, and claims to be the sole proprietor of that work since 
June, 1837, and it is his intention to take legal measures to establish his 
claim both as respects the past and the future. 

Although you are doubtless already acquainted with this claim, I wish, in 
behalf of Mr. Pierpont, to give you, as the publisher of the work, this ex- 
planation. Very respectfully, 

Richard Fletcher. 

I was then in treaty with Fowle, and upon this, took time for con- 
sideration, postponing the closing of the bargain. Mr. Pierpont is in 
the habit of calling upon me, and I have had conversations with him 
as well as Fowle. I don't remember that he gave any answer for 
this step. He has never told me that he did it, in consequence of 
Fowle's aiding his opponents in this present controvery. 1 never so 
inferred. 

[Witness agreed to furnish copies of the contract asked for by the 
counsel of the proprietors, omitting such things as were secrets of 
his business.] 

We did make a contract with Fowle, notwithstanding the letter of 
Mr. Fletcher. Some variations were made as to time of payment. 
Fowle did not want to trade on the same terms that Pierpont had. — 
We paid Fowle, however, what we considered was the same, we 
paid Pierpont. We saw fit, for our own reasons, to disregard Mr. 
Fletcher's letter. Fowle gave no collateral security that we should 
not suffer, not a bond on property, but gave what we considered se- 
curity. It was what was a sufficient assurance that we should not 



181 



suffer. It was nothing different from what we should have asked be= 
fore Mr. Fletcher's letter. 

We viewed the ease the same, and were as willing to enter into 

the contract after, as before. We were already aware of the differ- 
ence between Pierpont and Fowle. I took time to consider, because 
Mr. Bowen was absent and I wanted to consult him. I don't remem- 
ber whether or not a contract had been drawn up, before Mr. Fletch- 
er's letter had been received ; if there was, I think that paper was 
not the one, finally executed. This letter did not change us, because 
we knew before, that there was a dispute between Pierpont and 
Fowle, and knew that Pierpont intended to contest Fowle's right. — 
When we made the first bargain with Fowle for the Class Book, we 
did not stipulate for protection, as that contract covered a term of time 
only, as to which there was no dispute. In making a previous con- 
tract relative to the National Reader, we took the same security 
against Mr. Pierpont's claim. The bargain in 1837 was made by 
Mr. Bowen. 

[Some questions were asked about a letter, &c. connected with 
that transaction, but it appearing that witness only knew of it from 
knowledge not his own, the answer was interrupted.] 

As I understood it at the time, Fowle received the same as Pier- 
pont. After we had made a contract with Mr. Pierpont, and Mr. 
Fowle was about to make one, he threatened to sell out to some one 
else so as to compel us to pay a larger sum. I told him that he was 
in our power by reason of our engagement with Mr. Pierpont. When 
we first bargained with Fowle, we did not know of the contract then 
existing between Pierpont and Fowle, which Fowle considered Pier- 
pont to have broken in trading with us. 

The reason why I considered Fowle to be in our power, was, that 
he could not make a trade with another bookseller advantageously, 
we having- the plates, &c. 

We never viewed the one as putting the other in our power: the 
term was used only in consequence of Fowle's threat. Fowle made 
a contract with us first, putting Pierpont in our power, as I under- 
stand it, as much as Pierpont did Fowle, afterwards. 

James A. Dixon, sworn. Has been engaged in cutlery. Thir- 
teen years ago, I think, I had a steel hone for sharpening knives and 
razors, which I imported from England. It was not a saleable article, 
and I imported more after 1832. The last importation is now on 
hand. I would not accept a patent for it. It is unsaleable. Identi- 
fies a printed English bill of cutlery, in which is mentioned Knights' 
Metallic Razor Sharpeners, the article in question. It was thirteen 
years ago I wms in England, and there saw the steel hone. It is a 
round bar of steel the size of a pencil. It is here produced, — an arti- 
cle like a common dinner-knife steel. The first article he imported 
had a paste with it. 

Washburn here put in the copyright law of 1831, and the law 

revious. Also the correspondence between Mr. Fowle and Mr. 

ierpont, after Mr. Fletcher's letter forbidding the contract. 

Alfred Willard, sworn. Imported steel hones from England 
in 1831, from samples sent out. A duplicate of the bill came out 
with the sample. The bill described Knights' Steel Sharpeners, es- 
pecially designed for sharpening razors. It was received in the' fall 
of 1831. 



182 



Dexter. Our case is not that the hone was a novelty, and does 
not turn on the question of right to a patent — but we say that Mr. 
Pierpont, having promised the inventor or possessor of the hone not 
to disclose it, did so, and got them made to his injury. 

Washburn. We are prepared to show that in 1831, the steel hone 
was notorious, and therefore Mr. Pierpont could not have promised 
to keep it secret. The charges is he made a promise in 1821, and 
broke it in 1831, which was only telling what every body knew. 

Mr. Washburn cited Dr. Lardners' Cyclopedias of 1833, referring 
to Knights' steel hone, vol. 2: page 35. Also Journal of Franklin 
Institute, Penn. Jan. 1831, describing the process of sharpening with 
steel hones, which had been some years in use in England. 

Mr. Lothrop inquired if the English invention could prevent Dr. 
Bemis from taking out a patent here? The counsel were not pre- 
pared to answer. 

Dexter. To the witness. I understood the hone you allude to, 
to be a hardened piece of steel. 

Jlnswer. Yes. 

Dexter. I call attention to the fact that Dr. Bemis 5 invention was 
annealed steel, which in the arts is essentially a different article. 

Washburn, insisted it was the paste and not the steel which con- 
stituted the invention. 

Charles Tappan, sworn. Was in Europe with Mr. Pierpont in 
1835 and '36. In August, 1835, I found Mr. Pierpont very sick at 
Saratoga Springs. Told him I was going to Europe, and proposed 
he should go with me. I embarked before he did. He came after 
and overtook me in Florence. When I left for Rome Mr. P. was 
not well enough to go by common conveyance, and was fortunate 
enough to be invited to go in a private carriage. We were in Rome 
at Christmas, and viewed the pageant christmas evening ; he told 
me there was one thing that troubled him. He said he had agreed 
to write for Mr. Clapp and did not feel able. I told him to write him 
word he must decline doing it. He said that would not do, for 
he had taken his money. I told him then to send it back, and 
that would settle it. He said it was not convenient. I told him then 
to write him so, and that he would repay him on his return with in- 
terest. He did not seem to feel that that would relieve him, and I 
then told him to sit down and write a letter, describing the pageant 
eve we had seen that day, and I would draw a check for the money 
Mr. Clapp had paid him, which he could enclose, and explain the 
reasons why he had to abandon the undertaking. I gave him the 
check and left him writing. I kept a journal, myself. I do not know 
that he wrote at all. He complained at Marseilles of not being well. 
All interruption between this country and Europe caused by the 
cholera, had been removed before we reached Europe. No inter- 
ruption of correspondence existed. 

Washburn here put in a letter of Dec. 25, 1835, dated Rome, pub- 
lished in the Evening Gazette, in which Mr. Pierpont states his ina- 
bility to comply with his engagement to write for the press, in con- 
sequence of his health. This was the letter which contained the 
draft of Mr. Tappan, returning the money to Mr. Clapp, which he 
had paid to Mr. Pierpont. It gave a description of the occurrences 
on christmas day. 

Washburn also referred to Rosemer, vol. 4: Epistle to Corinth- 



1S3 



iang, as the source of the statement made by Mr. Pierpont, in rela- 
tion to courtezans prices. It was not put in he said, — as the original 
of a translatisn but as relating a similar vice, existing at Corinth. 

The Moderator asked if this was put in as the original of Mr. 
Pierpont's statement, as a translation ? 

Washburn. It is not. 

The Moderator then objected to its having no bearing on the ques- 
tion, which was as to the propriety of bringing such statements into 
the pulpit. The book was then withdrawn. 

Extract of a letter from the Rev. John Pierpont to W. W. Clapp, Editor of t^e Evening Ga- 
zette, dated Kome, Dec. 25, 1835. 

***** C£ The project of a Correspondence must be given 
up. I am so constantly — so incessantly moving — (for within less 
than three months I have gone over nearly five thousand miJes — by 
land and by sea) — that I find it next to impossible to make the barest 
and baldest memoranda of what I see — besides occasionally writing 
to my friends at home. 

" With the exception of Marseilles, where I was confined for ten 
days by a terrible lumbago which qualified me for any thing but writ- 
ing ' letters for the press,' I have been no more than five days in any 
place since I left home. I gave but three days to London and five to 
Paris — so desirous was I of getting into the more soft and genial cli- 
mate of Italy, and not two days have I felt in Italy yet when I could 
sit in the house without fire. Ice formed in the streets of Rome last 
night and lay there 'till near noon to-day. We cannot say as Horace 
did in his day, s See how Mount Soracte stands, white with deep 
snow!' for I can see no snow on Soracte to-day — though the Appe- 
nines — off as far as their heads can be seen, are as white as the pow- 
dered locks of a Cardinal; or as the white satin slipper of the Pope. 
You see I draw rny similitudes from objects around me — objects 
which have, to-day, been strikingly presented to my view — for to-day, 
you observe, is Christmas; and I have been with several of my friends 
to witness the solemnities of the occasion at St. Peters, where the 
Pope officiated and appeared in state. I wish I could give you an 
idea of these solemnities; but words are inadequate to such a task. — 
One, for this must have at his command sounds, and colours, and 
numbers; military pomp and architectural sublimity, like which, no 
other Temple on earth than St. Peters Church can exhibit, — and these 
are, none of them at my disposal. And yet to me it all appeared like 
a mere pageant. I could, when I saw the successor of St. Peter, as 
His Holiness is here regarded, seated on a splendid chair of crimson 
and gold, wearing a triple-crown on his head, borne on the shoulders 
of twelve men, themselves all dressed in crimson, a great white sat- 
in banner borne over his head, soldiers clad in complete steel, at least, 
as far as the waist, with their hauberks marching on his right and 
left, trumpets sounding before him, and throwing their music along 
the echoing vaults and up the golden dome of this most magnificent 
of all earthly temples, till he came to his seat, — and then I saw Car- 
dinals and Archbishops approach to kiss his robe, under which his 
hand was lifted up and extended to receive the homage, and Bishops 
kneel themselves down before him and humbly kiss the white satin 
slipper that covered his feet — I could not help asking myself whether 
the poor fisherman of the Galilean Lake ever dreamed that such hon- 



184 



ors should ever be rendered to one who should be regarded as his re- 
presentative, in such a temple that should bear his name. * * * 

<c I assure you, I have, as yet, seen nothing abroad, in the least de- 
gree calculated to make me think less of home, or to value or love 
my own country less than I did before I had seen any other. — 
The climate here is, indeed, a good deal more mild thau it is in 
Boston ; but, I believe it is a general rule, all over the world, 
that the less severe is the cold to which a people are exposed, the 
less pains do they take to provide for, or guard against the cold that 
does come upon them; and therefore, even here in Rome, though the 
Orange grow and ripen on trees that are set in the earth, in favora- 
ble situations — (though the fruit is very ordinary) — and therefore the 
climate may be said to be mild, when compared with that of Boston, 
yet, as I have already stated, snow is on the mountains in full view 
of the city, and ice formed in the streets last night, — and for all that 
we had no fire in our breakfast and dining room, — nor have I seen 
any in the house, excepting in the kitchen and in my own chamber. 
In the house, I am more comfortable at home, than I have as yet been 
in Italy. True, every body says it is a shocking cold season, — very 
remarkably cold, — but be the season as uncommonly cold as it may, 
I am satisfied that in their houses the Bostonians are about as com- 
fortably warm as are the Romans. 

" But, my dear sir, I see that I am filling up this sheet with mat- 
ters which are somewhat foreign to the main object of this letter — 
which was to state to you the utter impossibility of my writing for 
your paper, situated, as by experience I find I am situated, and as I 
probably shall be during my absence from home; — and to express to 
you the regret that 1 shall feel, should my inability to carry my pur- 
pose and your wishes into effect — be to you the occasion of any dis- 
appointment. Truth is, I am, and must be almost constantly on the 
wing. When I am travelling by land or sea, I can wrire nothing, 
and when I stop in any city, or place, that deserves attention, I must 
be running about to see what is worthy of notice — and, if I shut my- 
self up in my lodging room to write, I may, for all the purposes of 
health or observation be at home, in my own chamber. I have been 
constantly reluctant to come to this conviction, and to communicate 
it to you, but a faithful experiment forces it upon me, and I must com- 
municate to you the result of my experience. To write letters from 
abroad, which can be of any value at home, one must be longer in 
the place from which and of which he writes than I have been, or 
probably shall he during my absence from my own country." 

Francis Jackson, called and sworn. I saw Mrs. Leeds yester- 
day. She told me Mr. Pierpont visited her mother in 1833. She 
died in April, 1834. He did not visit her, to her recollection, but 
once, and she thought she had a, right to complain of him for neglect. 

I have been a member of this Society forty years. The main 
cause of the difficulty with Mr. Pierpont, was his efforts in the tem- 
perance cause. This was the great head and front. The first com- 
plaint, was at the report of his Saratoga Address. It caused much 
excitement. When he returned, he preached a sermon distinctly 
denying having used the word felonious, as applied to the dealers. 
After that, it subsided until the license law came up, and it was then 
revived. In 1833, Winsor Fay moved to reduce Mr. Pierpont's sal- 



183 



ary to $1700 from $2200. I think Mr. Fay did not worship here 
then. The motion was lost. Mr. Ellis moved to reduce to $2000, 
but it was not acted on. After that, there was some small grumbling 
about Anti-masonry, but no great dissatisfaction. Those men oppo- 
sed to him were then Anti-masons, many of them. He preached a 
sermon against oaths. There was no further disturbance till the 
license law came up. On his return from Europe, a hymn was 
sung, congratulating him on his return, which was read as among 
the exercises. It was not adopted by any committee, but was not 
objected to. Do not know who was the author. 

The licence law of 1838, was the great source of difficulty. Mr. 
Pierpont drew a petition, and went before a committee of the Legis- 
ture to advocate the law. They said he was going to legislate as 
well as preach for them. There was great excitement. It was said 
he prepared the law. I believe he did not, but he advocated it be- 
fore the Committee. 

The preamble and votes of Sept. 1838, were in the hand writing 
of Mr. Moses Williams. He was not a worshipper here. Had left 
the Society and city. When the report was accepted in favor of Mr. 
Pierpont, the vote stood 59 friends to 41 opponents. I did not know 
of his delivering a temperance lecture from the annual meeting of 
1838 to 1839. I think I should be in the the way of knowing. After 
the meeting where the votes were offered by Mr. Crane, in 1838, I 
saw Mr. Pierpont with several friends, and he said he had written 
his resignation, and wished us to take it to the meeting, and if the 
minority was large to put it in. I objected on the ground we could 
not judge for him, and that he might retain it and we would report 
to him the result, and he could then judge for himself. We did not 
take it. After the meeting, I did report to him the numbers, on each 
side, with a list of the men and occupations. All the dealers in 
ardent spirit in the congregation, were on the list of his opponents, 
except one. I asked him if he would flee before such an army. I 
wished him to judge. 1 did not wish to judge for him. I made no 
request be should remain. He made no reply. If he had resigned 
then, I think it would not have been accepted by a majority. The 
first test vote was on the acceptance of the report of the Committee 
who conferred with Mr. Pierpont, and his letter. The traffickers 
were not satisfied with it. 

After the annual meeting of 1838, three pews were sold at auction, 
in Feb. 1839. Winsor Fay, John Minot, and Jabez Fisher, three 
distillers, bought the pews. Mr. F. was a distiller — his distillery had 
been burnt down. Fisher was a worshipper here. The two others 
were not. Nothing occurred in particular up to 1839. The traf- 
fickers were not quiet. The license law was discussed every where, 
and caused much excitement. I am not aware that pews were 
bought on the side of Mr. Pierpont. There may have been trans- 
fers. It is so said. There was no excitement at the sale, when Mr. 
Fay bought. Not high bidding. Afterwards pews were bought 
on both sides, to make votes. 

To Mr. Gannett. There was nothing unfair in the purchase of 
the pe ws. They were always used afterward against Mr. Pierpont. 
I ought to mention the preaching of a sermon on the Moral Rule of 
Political Action, which gave displeasure. It carried six or eight per- 
sons friendly to Mr. Pierpont, over to the other side. They said he 
24 



186 



had dictated to them how to vote; that his sermon would be the ruin 
of the Whig party. The moral of the sermon was, that morals 
should be put above party, and I think he was right. I did not see 
how in would hurt one party more than the other, if they were 
honest. 

[The hour of adjournment having arrived, a letter was read re- 
questing the attendance of the reverend members of the Council, at 
the exhibition of the Theological School, on Friday. The Council 
accordingly adjourned over, until Monday, the 19th.] 

Monday, July 19. 

Francis Jackson continued. 

He presents a list of the friends and opponents of Mr. Pierpont, 
with their occupations, who had bought pews since September, 1839. 

Pews. Friends. 
No. 6. Caleb G. Loring, Hardware. 
127. G. W. F. Mellen, Chemist. 
15. Edmund Jackson, Tallow Chandler. 
51. Freeman Fisher, Dry Goods. 
60. John J. May, Hardware. 
8. Frederick Folsom, Shoe-store. 
112. Joseph White, Cashier of Atlas Bank. 
26. Wm. F. Haynes, Shoe-dealer. 
18£. Thomas Emmons, Clerk. 
140. Gilman Davis, Clerk W. Rail Road, Dec. 1839. 
71. Marshal Perry, Physician, June 1840. 
111. Mary Jarvis, widow, Dec. 1839. 
97. Edward Haynes, Shoe-dealer. 
All were purchased to be occupied, except the pews bought by 
Edward and Wm. F. Haynes. The whole number purchased was 
thirteen and a half, and all intended to be occupied but two. Hav- 
ing given the occupations of the friends, he would now give that of 
the opponents, who purchased pews. 

Opponents. 
No. 136. Winsor Fay, Distiller, Feb. 1839. 
188. Jabez Fisher, recently a Distiller. 
128. Jonathan Minot, Distiller and stranger. 

81. Winsor Fay, Sept. 1839. 

61. Daniel Weld, Trafficker in Ardent Spirits. 
84. John Redman, builder. 
89. Winsor Fay, Distiller, Oct. 1839. 
109. Wm. E. Fay, Distiller. 
22. Wm. C. Fay, " 
4. John B. Weld, Trafficker in Ardent Spirits, bought pre 
vious to March, 1840. 
Eleven pews, viz. 45, 117, 46, 52, 64, 72, 110, 114, 119, 
27, bought by J. B. Weld. 

82. By John D. Weld, or John Everett, a mariner. 
100. Warren White, formerly a Trafficker. 

103. By the same. 



187 



Pews. Opponents. 

112. Gilham B. Wheeler, Carpenter. 

53. David Williams, Trafficker in A. S. 

116. Sold at auction to opponents. 

Twenty-six pews, all bought by opponents. Mr. Daniel Weld 
bought the first pew, after the three bought by the Distillers. 

Dexter. When was Mr. Fisher a distiller ? 

Ans. I believe his Distillery burnt down in 1836, or '35. 

Mr. Sullivan. Do you mean by traffickers in ardent spirits, 
that they deal in that alone ? 

Ans. O, no sir, that is one article. 

Mr. Sullivan. Then you mean a Grocer ? 

Ans. I do. 

Of the the twenty-six pews bought by the opponents, six were 
bought at auction. The three pews first bought, were bought to 
change the majority. It was after the sermon on the Moral Rule of 
Political Action, in January. They said, now he must go. That is 
the reason, I believe, the pews were purchased. Those who do not 
attend here, who bought pews, are VVinsor Fay, formerly attended, 
but not for many years ; J. Minot, never attended ; William C. Fay, 
might have attended formerly ; John D. Weld, a worshipper at Mr. 
Lowell's Church, formerly came here with his father. Mr. G. B. 
Wheeler, not a worshipper, belongs to Universalists, formerly was 
a worshipper, within two or three years. David Williams, not a 
worshipper, since his marriage ; was five years ago, or thereabouts. 

Of these pews, but one was occupied for a short time by the pur- 
chaser, Mr. Everett. Not one of the others occupied by the pur- 
chasers. Mr. Daniel Weld is the only one who is now a worship- 
per. I count back to 1838, all who were then worshippers. 

Dexter. Is not Mr. Fisher a worshipper ? 

Ans. I ought to include Mr. Fisher. 

Dexter. Mr. Everett, too ? 

Ans. Mr. Everett is another. 

Dexter. Are not Mr. Redman and Mr. Warren White ? 
Ans. They are so. 

Dexter. Seems to me you are giving a much larger number 
than you supposed. You stated but one, and here are five. 

Ans. They did not occur to me at first. 

Being asked as to the price the pews brought — 

In regard to the cost, I cannot state what the opponents paid for 
them. Three pews were bought at $200 each. Twelve years ago, 
the price of the same pews might have been more. The pews pur- 
chased, were owned some by opponents and some by friends. The 
latter knew they were to be sold and what for. Upwards of twenty 
went into hands of distillers and venders. 

The number of Proprietors, (meaning individuals, and not pews,) 
who are friends of Mr. Pierpom, as tested by the vote of March 9, 
1840, witness considers, are as follows : There were 91 persons vo- 
ting, 50 were in Mr. Pierpont's favor, and 41 against him. The 
whole number of pews is 180, besides gallery pews. The whole 
number of votes was 124. There were 8 or 10 neutrals, who would 
not vote on either side. There are a number of pews owned by the 
Society that have no vote. 



188 



The neutrals were Otis Everett, W. Hastings, Deacon Bass, John 
Knapp, T. B. Wales, Aaron Baldwin, Thos. Holland, John Parker, 
and Benjamin Bussey — nine. 

Neither of these men would come in on either side. Both sides 
exerted on them all the influence they could. Mr. Knapp, Mr. Bass 
and Mr. Holland attend here now. Cannot state when Mr. Wales 
or Mr. Baldwin left. Of the 41 opponents who voted, only SI were 
worshippers. Of the 50 friends, 44 were worshippers. Of the 124 
votes, 45 were cast by the dealers in ardent spirits. Six that were not 
worshippers here, and traffickers, cast 19 votes. This was March 9, 
1840. There were ten absentees, whose pews were represented. — 
In their own right the dealers cast 38 votes, the rest they held by 
proxy. The Standing Committee had the contract of letting the 
Society pews. They never refused to let them. 

The number of worshippers in the house in favor of Mr. Pierpont 
will appear by a list, witness offered to put in, of friends who have 
signed a paper. The paper was got up while the Council was sitting 
at the Court Room, containing 118 names. Most of them had signed 
at his request, and he knew they wished Mr. Pierpont to remain. 

Dexter objects to such a paper. It is not the Society, but tran- 
sient comers, who have no voice in the question. The paper was 
dated Feb. 6, 1841, since the Council was in session. 

Rand. These persons are in no way parties to the controversy. 
This is a Society incorporated, and none but its members have a voice 
in it. 

Mr. Lothrop. The Council fairly decided that this paper was not 
to be received, pending the question of jurisdiction. But they inti- 
mated, that if we proceeded to the investigation, it might be compe- 
tent, and he now thought it proper evidence, although there was an 
inconsistency in the Pastor and his Counsel, in offering this paper, 
which related to matters since July, 1840, which they protested 
against being brought in on the other side. 

Washburn said that the Council having adopted a rule, in rela- 
tion to evidence, he of course, should conform to it, without reference 
to his own opinion. 

Dexter. The objection to this evidence is, that the Council can- 
not know what the real opinion of the signers are. It is a list got up 
in private by the friends of Mr. Pierpont, to a general statement of 
approbation, without it being known what the means used were, on 
the representations upon which the signatures were obtained. 

Washburn insisted it was better evidence than quoting the opin- 
ions and declarations of others, on the other side. 

Dexter. The gentleman has insisted on evidence under oath, 
and will admit no other. Was this such evidence? It was the least 
satisfactory kind of hearsay testimony. 

Washburn. It is sworn to by Mr. Jackson, who says he procur- 
ed most of the signatures, and knows they were given by those who 
wished Mr. Pierpont to remain. 

Dexter. Then let it stand on his oath alone, and not on that pa- 
per. It is attempted to bring in the evidence of these persons, not 
under oath, but upon the oath of Mr. Jackson, and this evaded the 
rule that the testimony should be under oath. It was one man swear- 
ing for others. 

Rand, suggested the other point as decisive, viz: that this was not 



189 



a question between the pastor and the world, but between him and 
the parish, thepew-holders, who only are the parties. 

The Moderator submitted the question to the Council, He said 
it was obvious with what facility subscriptions might be obtained. 
He had known an instance in which the same names, and of intelli- 
gent persons, had been placed to papers entirely opposite in charac- 
ter, from their neglecting to learn their import. 

Mr. Gannett did not understand the parish or the people or a 
minister as meaning the Proprietors only, but those who regularly 
worship at the church permanently. We have learnt what the feel- 
ing is in the dead wooden pews — we now want to know what the 
feeling is in the living hearts of the people of this Congregation. 

Mr. Sullivan was ready to go with him in ascertaining the opin- 
ions of the Congregation, but he was decidedly of opinion that this 
paper was not proper evidence. He was willing to receive any sat- 
isfactory testimony of the opinions of the whole Congregation, but 
not in this loose form. 

Washburn, withdrew the caption and offered the names above. 

Dexter. Then it is a mere list of persons, to whom the witness 
swears, as friends of Mr. Pierpont, from the mere fact of their sign- 
ing that paper. It goes to show the supposed numbers of friends, 
without any regard to their right to a voice in this matter. 

Mr. Elliot. That was not the question for the Council to de- 
cide. The charge was not that Mr. Pierpont had no friends, but that 
he had cherished the affections of a portion of his parish, technically 
such, those who paid aud supported the minister. The question was 
how he stood with the parish, not with others. This paper was no 
such evidence as ought to be received of that fact. In a proper form, 
it was a fact he wished to learn. 

The Moderator could not separate the caption from the names. 
The purpose of it when the names were procured, was to remon- 
strate against the action of the Council as an ex-parte Council, and 
that object had passed away. It therefore did not appear whether the 
requirement to express an opinion on any other question but that. 

Mr. Lothrop should now vote against the paper, on that ground, 
but was ready to receive testimony to a list of names friendly to Mr. 
Pierpont, of whom the witness could say he knew they wished him 
to remain. 

Washburn here withdrew the paper, and asked Mr. Jackson, the 
witness, according to his knowledge and belief, how many occupants 
and owners of pews are friendly to Mr. Pierpont? 

Answer by Witness, I state the number to be 140, but I found 
th-at opinion on the signatures, of which I got about two thirds to 
that paper. There may be more. Of the worshippers here opposed 
to Mr, Pierpont in 1338, there were between 40 and 50: I mean indi- 
viduals, who own or hire pews. I include all of age, as to males, 
not females, except nine names of women, on Mr. Pierpont's side, 
who are pew owners. No females who own pews are opposed to 
him. 

John Tyler, John French, Thomas Hunting, Henry Curtis, Thos* 
Brewer, E. Harrington, Charles Ellis, and several others who went 
out of town, have left the Society, but not on account of dissatisfac- 
tion with Mr. Pierpont. Cannot say as to those who went out of 
town. Jonathan Bowditch, within a month has hauled down the 



190 

rum sign and put up the temperance sign, and since that reformation 
has taken place he is friendly, and has come back but does not wish 
to have his name used. I judge of the friendliness of the 140 from 
the signatures to that paper. My opinion is they could not get fifty 
names on the other side. Of the list of sixty one names given on 
the other side by Mr. Crane, twenty one are dealers in ardent spirits. 
Of those who went to Mr. Motte's Soeiety, only four, as I believe, 
left from dissatisfaction with Mr. Pierpont. 1 have ascertained this 
by their signing the paper since this Council has been in session. 

Mr. Gannett. Of your own personal knovjledge how many of 
them are friendly to Mr. Pierpont? 

Answer. I cannot answer, that. I can leave the list and they can 
sift it, on the other side. I have no doubt all are friendly to Mr. 
Pierpont. 

Mr. Gannett. But of your personal knowledge. They were 
confined to that point on the other side, and you must be. 

Answer. I infer from the names on the paper, that they were 
friendly, and some that I called upon and got their signatures, gave 
them as the friends of Mr. Pierpont. 

Being asked how Mr. Pierpont's salary was now raised, and if his 
friends would continue it? — 

The opponents have paid nothing for two years. Those who wor- 
ship here pay him now, and of course, would do it if he remained. 
I take it for nearly two years no tax has been laid. The support of 
Mr. Pierpont is furnished by his friends, by voluntary subscription. 

Being asked if they had raised the money for the full salary — 

The friends have no taxes to pay, but they have signed a paper to 
be willing to pay. I do not know how much Mr. Pierpont has re- 
ceived from them. I have no doubt the Society that will remain, if 
the opponents go, will be willing and able to support the pastor. — 
The salary is $2200. 1 do not know what has been paid the last 
year. 

As to attempting to gag the pulpit on the subject of temperance, 
the facts are numerous, going through the documents and beginning 
with Mr. Pierpont's speech at Saratoga. Witness also refers to the 
meeting in 1938, when a resolve was offered — That whereas Mr. 
Pierpont was pledged to abstain from extraneous and exciting topics, 
his letter was to be received as satisfactory. This motion was laid 
on th© table. Had it been adopted, it would have trammelled the 
pulpit, and he, for one, would not have remained under it. 

Many persons who wish to come here to worship, will not do so 
while the quarrel remains. I do not know on which side they are. 
I have heard some say that they would come' in if Mr. Pierpont re- 
mained, but I cannot name any. They are few. If Mr. Pierpont 
were removed, nearly all opposed to him would not remain here, as 
I believe. All those in favor of rum and slavery would congregate 
here, if he went away, and might build up a large Society. The 
Proprietors are wealthy, and I cannot say what they would do. 

The friends of Mr. Pierpont want a free pulpit, and that is the 
principal cause of the difficulty. The opponents wish to trammel it, 
and we wish it free. 

Mr. Lothrop. What do you understand by the freedom of the 
pulpit ? 

Ans. I mean free to discuss all moral subjects— to look about the 



191 



streets, and see how we get our money, and make it a subject of dis- 
cussion in the pulpit, if we do it in a wrong way, and expose all im- 
morality. 

Mr. Lothrop. Is this freedom of the pulpit to be entirely in the 
hands of the pastor, or are his people to have a voice in it? 

Jlns. I look upon it the same as the freedom of the press, and if 
it is abused, there is redress, as in that case. 

Mr. Lothrqp. What redress? 

Jlns. Those who dislike it, can leave the Society. 

Mr. Lothrop. Suppose a majority dislike the proceedings of the 
pastor, what then? 

Jlns. They have a right to turu him out, if they can show good 
reason for it. 

Mr. Lothrop. Has the dissatisfaction arisen from the subjects 
treated of, or the manner of doing it ; is it the use or the abuse of 
the freedom you speak of, that has caused the complaints? 

Jlns. They say it is the manner, but I think it is the matter. 

The Moderator. Have you ever so understood from them, or 
do you state it against their assertions to the contrary? 

Jlns. The rumsellers say they are friends of temperance, but 
they don't like the manner of advancing it. 

The Moderator. You have said that those in favor of rum and 
slavery, might get up a Society, if the Pastor left, but it is stated by 
the opponents that there are other causes of dissatisfaction. Do you 
mean to deny that? 

Jlns. There have been other subjects of complaint, such as Im- 
prisonment for Debt, and Anti-masonry; but they have passed by, as 
Temperance and Abolition will in time. All we want is, to leave the 
pulpit free to discuss these topics as fast as they rise in the public 
mind. 

The Moderator. Have you never regretted the manner in which 
these topics have been treated at times, by the Pastor? 

Jlns. I do not remember any instance in which I was dissatisfied 
with the manner of Mr. Pierpont. 

Mr. Sullivan. Had you yourself been employed in a business, 
for a great many years deemed innocent and an honest calling, would 
you, holding that opinion, and being a grocer, for instance, have felt 
yourself aggrieved at anything that has been said in the pulpit? 

Jlns. I should not; but I might at what was said in the Lecture 
Room, about distillers. If I thought it an honest calling, 1 should 
have felt dissatisfied. 

Sullivan. Supposing it, then, an honest or a lawful calling, has 
Mr. Pierpont said things that must necessarily offend the feelings of 
that portion of his people. 

Jlns. No, he has not. 

Sullivan. Then no difficulty can have arisen from that cause? 
Jlns. No, sir. 

Sullivan. Then you mean to be understood, that as a christian 
teacher, the Pastor has treated those who differed from him on this 
subject, with tenderness and kindness, as a christian minister ought 
to do? 

Ans. I think he has. With the light there was abroad, I cannot 
doubt it. 

The Moderator. Have you never been led to regret the manner 
in which these topics were introduced and applied? 



192 



Ans. I have regretted he did not preach upon them oftener, par- 
ticularly temperance. I do not remember any sermon on that sub- 
ject in the pulpit. I believe he never preached but one. There 
have been passages frequently, alluding to it, and the complaint was, 
he lectured upon it in other towns. 

Mr. Gannett. Have you never heard any allusion to persons in 
his Society, — for instance, in the mention made of the New England 
Rum he saw at Smyrna? 

Jins. I did not consider that personal. It applied to all Distillers 
and exporters. 

The Moderator. Suppose you had a personal friend among that 
portion of the congregation, do you say, on your oath, that you never 
heard an allusion which you should have considered personal to 
him ? 

Ans. I do, and I say this in reference to my situation, if I had 
been a friend of the party, alluded to. 

Ques. Were there attempts by the Pastor to conciliate? 



Ans. From Sept. 1838, to 1839, was the year of conciliation, and 
I think Mr. Pierpont did attempt to conciliate, as far as he could 
conscientiously, and preserve the independence of the pulpit. The 
dealers began to oppose in 1838; the anti-abolitionists in 1839, after 
the sermon on moral rule, and then the two forces united. It was 
during the year of conciliation, that that sermon on political action 
was preached, in Jan. 1839. 

I am not aware, that in the whole year, Mr. Pierpont succeeded 
in conciliating a single person. I do not believe he did. The effect 
of the sermon on moral rule of political action, was very decisive. 
That was the starting point to the opposition. The idea was, he had 
broke his promise, forfeited his pledge to abstain from these topics 
in his letter, and they said now he must go. They understood the 
letter as a pledge to abstain, which we did not. Between the letter, 
which was adopted in 1838, until the preaching of that sermon, the 
Parish was quiet. If he had not preached it, I do not believe the 
dealers would have been quiet. The license law would have led to 
a renewal of the difficulty. 

Mr. Lothrop. To what did the sermon on the moral rule of 
political action apply. Did it refer to the repeal of the license law? 

Ans. It applied to several subjects. After the year of concilia- 
tion, and since November, 1839, Mr. Pierpont has taken a course, 
undoubtedly, not calculated to conciliate the dealers. We found 
abstaining made no converts, in 1838, and we then concluded he 
should go at it again, and lecture on temperance. The only differ- 
ence has been, he has lectured on temperance since, and we like it r 
the harder he smites the rum hogsheads the better. 

Mr. Gannett. What was done in in 1S39, to conciliate? 
Ans. All I know is, he did not lecture, and he made more par- 
ochial visits. Since then he has not visited so much. 

Mr. Gannett. Have you approved of all the communications of 
the Pastor? 

Ans. The friends have been assembled in every case of Mr. Pier- 
pont's replying to the Proprietors, in the correspondence, and he has 
had their approbation in all he has written. He has had mine fully, 
in every thing he has written and done. 



193 

[ Witness reads the letter of 2d Oct. 1838, intended to be sent by 
Mr. Pierpont, as his resignation, in which he inquires what the ex- 
citing topics are that have disturbed the Society, and concludes that 
it is the license law, and that by striving with the spirit of intemper- 
ance he has diminished his usefulness — and as he will not yield to 
such a spirit, he will retire before it, and asks for his dismissal, as 
he cannot preach to their satisfaction and to his own.] 

To the Standing Committee of Hollis Street Society : 
Gentlemen : — 

The votes passed by the Proprietors of the Church in Hollis Street, at their 
annual meeting, on the evening of the 10th of September, were communica- 
ted to me by the Chairman of the Special Committee, raised by the Proprie- 
tors, to confer with me upon the matter referred to, in the votes themselves. 

The Report of that Committee, made to the Proprietors at their meeting, on 
the evening of the 24th of the month, and printed by their order, and for 
their use, has informed you, and the Society at large, in what manner the 
Committee discharged its duty. I leave it for the gentlemen, composing that 
Committee, to bear witness, for or against me, as to the spirit with which they 
were met, and as to the plainness and faithfulness with which I showed them 
the position in which it appeared to me, that the Society, as a religious body, 
was placing itself by its present action. 

As an offering, upon the altar of peace, I laid before the Proprietors, 
through their Committee of Conference, the document that was printed with 
the Report of that Committee, and has now been acted on, and disposed of. — 
That sacrifice has failed to make reconciliation. That full and hearty satis- 
faction, on the part of the people, which alone can give their minister any 
confidence in his labours with them, or any encouragement to continue them 
has not, in the opinion of some of my friends, been manifested. 

In preparing the communication last referred to, it was my wish, if possi- 
ble, to avoid the issue tendered me by the votes of the Proprietors. I wished 
to keep the main-spring of this movement as much as possible out of sight, 
by leaving it wrapped up in the indefiniteness and generality of the votes 
transmitted to me by the Committee of Conference ; — for I was reluctant to 
expose it, farther than those votes themselves left it exposed to the gaze of 
the christian community. I cheerfully refer it to the charity of that com- 
munity, at this time and in coming times, to judge, whether, in this, I was 
moved more by considerations affecting myself personally, or by those affect- 
ing the character of Hollis Street Society. 

Yielding to my feelings on that point, I forbore, in my first communication 
to inquire or to show, to which one, in particular, of the various " exciting 
topics that divide, and disturb the harmony of the community," allusion was 
made by the author of the votes that were passed by the Proprietors, and 
thereby made their own. That I would gladly have left unasked, and un- 
25 



194 



told. To leave it thus any longer, is now impossible. I must now ask, — Which 
is the " exciting topic," by my " zeal" in which I have alienated my friends, 
and diminished my usefulness among them ? Is it party politics ? My friends, 
on both sides of that topic, whether the politics be local or general, state or 
national, well know that, so far from having shown an undue zeal, on that 
subject, I have exposed myself, rather, to the charge of indifference. Is it 
anti-slavery ? Though I told my people, nearly two years ago, — what I trust 
that most of them knew before, — that I cherished a most cordial detestation 
of slavery, in all its forms, — domestic and political, bodily and spiritual, yet 
have I never preached upon that " exciting topic " in my own, or any other 
pulpit , nor have I, to my knowledge, shown much zeal upon it— as I hope 
never to show indifference — either in public or private. Nor, do I know any one 
of my parishioners whose pecuniary interests are so directly connected with 
that topic that, for me to speak upon it, either in my pulpit or out of it, should 
afford ground for the alienation of my friends. Is the Temperance Question, 
then, the " exciting topic" that has produced this movement on the part of 
" many members of this Society? 15 This inquiry forces itself or rather, the 
votes now under consideration force it upon me. And it seems to me that 
these votes themselves, taken in connexion with their attending circumstances, 
and explanatory facts, give it an affirmative answer. For, when I look at the 
votes, and see that one of them admonishes me that the Saviour of the world 
" did not interfere with the civil law," and that another expresses the belief, 
that, as a christian minister, I am " not warranted to interfere with the estab- 
lished laws of the land, but that the alteration of old, and the adoption of new 
laws belong to legislators chosen for that purpose:" — when I consider that, 
among other things, I am informed, by the Committee of Conference, that it 
has been as industriously as it has been falsely reported that the minister of 
this church has been " interfering with the established laws of the land," in 
that he drafted the recent law of the Commonwealth 14 regulating the sale of 
spirituous liquors," aud was very active, as a " lobby member" in urging it 
through the Legislature j — when, too, I consider that the votes, now before me, 
as they were presented at the meeting of the Proprietors, and, with some 
amendment, adopted by them, are known to be in the hand-writing of one of 
their number, who not only is largely concerned in business which, it is sup- 
posed, will be affected by that law, but is even a member of the Committee of 
Grocers lately organized in this city for the avowed purpose of overturning it; 
and when I consider that the same proprietor has assured me, personally, that, 
but for my agency in reference to that law, he should not have acted agains t 
me ; — when I bear in mind that " many members of this Society" are, more 
or less extensively concerned in the same business with him; — aud when I 
remember, — as I cannot soon forget — the words of a member of the Commit- 
tee of Conference, when speaking of many of my people, in reference to the 
same business, he said to me, in Committee, tc if you do not let them alone, 
they will not let you alone j" — when, moreover, I consider that the " topic" 
now in view is, at the present time, particularly exciting to a large portion 



195 



of this community ; and that the Temperance Cause is one to which I am 
not indifferent, but in which, on the contrary, I have long felt a deep inter- 
est, and remembering that "it is good to be zealously affected in a good 
thing," may probably have shown some zeal, as I have certainly made some 
efforts, and am now ready to make some sacrifices; when 1 put all these things 
together, and consider them, I cannot escape the conclusion that the votes of 
the Proprietors, passed at their meeting on the 10th of September, originated 
in the spirit that is antagonist to the Temperence Reformation. 

That, then, is the spirit, by opposing which I have, it seems, alienated my 
friends. By my zeal in striving with that spirit, I am told by these votes, 
that I have "diminished my usefulness as the christian teacher of this Socie- 
ty." With that spirit, of course, I may no longer contend, free-handed, as 
the minister of this people. I cannot resist it with their hearty sympathy 
and encouragement; and, as I will not bow to it, there seems to be nothing 
left me but to retire from before it. As far as in me lies, I will neither becomej 
myself, nor will I suffer it to become, one of " those exciting topics" which may 
" divide, or disturb the harmony of" those whom I may still call my people. 
Their peace is more important to them^than my comfort and temporal wel- 
fare can be. 

I must, therefore, through you, gentlemen, ask, — and 1 do now ask — that 
they will dismiss me from the office of their minister ; — an office whose du- 
ties I see that I can no longer discharge to their satisfaction, if I discharge 
them, in any measure to my own. 

The pulpit, which, from this time I no longer regard as mine, I will con- 
tinue to supply by exchanges with my brethren in this neighborhood's long as 
it shall consist with your pleasure, and my future engagements ; — asking on- 
ly, and respectfully, that I may be permitted to bid farewell, from it, to a 
people from whom, after twenty years of mutual sympathy and kind offices, 
it is to me, most painful to be separated by any hand, but death's ; and, in one 
more prayer with them, to commend them to the protection and guidance of 
that Good Being, who, as he suffers not a sparrow to fall without his notice, 
will still take care of His servant, and 

Yours, 

JOHN PIERPONT. 

Boston, 2d Oct. 1838. 

This letter was withheld by the approbation of Mr. Pierpont's 
friends. I declined the responsibility of offering it to the Society. 

Mr. Lothrop. On what grounds did you assume the responsi- 
bility of advising the Pastor not to send in his resignation? 

Jlns. I preferred to leave it to him to judge. I believe he had 
made up his mind to leave it to us, to put it in, if the minority was 
large. I have no doubt he was sincere, in that intention. 

Mr. Lothrop. Then the responsibility of his not sending in his 
resignation, which prevented the action of the parish at that time, 
rests with his friends, and not with Mr. Pierpont. 



196 



Arts. I think it does. I was to furnish him the facts, at the meet- 
ing, and he was to judge for himself. I did ask him if he would flee 
from such an army as that, but I gave him no advice. My influence 
did go to induce him not to send in the letter, which prevented the 
action of the whole Parish upon the question of resignation. Mr. 
Boyd, H. Smith, and Charles White, were with me, in the inter- 
view. I have no knowledge of any advice given to Mr. Pierpont, 
about sending in the letter, except what I have stated. 

Cross-examined. Dexter. What do you think is the real cause 
of the difficulty ? 

Jlns. I think the chief cause is his efforts in the temperance cause. 
I carry it back to 1833, his Saratoga Speech. That was allayed, 
but I do not think the dealers were satisfied; not all, because there 
was a revival of it again in the law of 1838. 

Dexter. What fact occurred after the Saratoga matter, to show 
it was not allayed? 

Ans. Mr, Fay refused to pay his taxes — that was one thing; and 
so did Mr. Fisher, I think. The dissatisfaction was not allayed, as 
to them. Mr. Crane still believes that Mr. Pierpont used the oppro- 
brious word, (felon,) and he was not satisfied, I presume, and that 
makes three. I infer it, because this was brought up again in 1839, 
when the License law was discussed, and from what they said. 

Dexter. Who do you mean, when you say they 1 

Jlns. The dealers in ardent spirits ? 

Dexter. What was said, and by whom? 

Jlns. I cannot refer to any one in particular. I know nothing 
Mr. Pierpont did, except to lecture. The license law revived the 
old difficulty. They did not forgive him for what he had done in 
that. 

Dexter. What led to the revival of the difficulty in 1839? 

Jlns. The preaching of the sermon on political action. They 
considered it a breach of his pledge. 

Mr. Lothrop. What evidence have you that they were dissatis- 
fied after 1838, and before the sermon on the moral rule of political 
action? 

Jlns. They were ready to take advantage of any thing that came 
up; and after that sermon, they brought in a new class, those oppo- 
sed to Abolition, to strengthen them. 

Mr. Lothrop. But what occurred after the difficulty subsided, 
and before that sermon ? 

Jlns. I do not recollect any particular thing. I know they were 
not satisfied. 

Mr. Lothrop. How do you know it, and from what facts? 

Jlns. It was quiet, to be sure, for a time; but I suppose they felt 
dissatisfied, because it broke out afterwards. I cannot fix on any 
thing between that time in particular, to show dissatisfaction? 

Dexter. Why then do you say though dissatisfaction continued? 

Ans. It never has ceased. There has been a continual grum- 
bling. The traffickers could not effect their object alone, and waited 
until others came to their aid. 

Dexter. Have thay not uniformly denied that what you now at- 
ribute to them, was the chief ground of their complaint? 

Ans. They have. They say it is exciting topics, but it is my 
opinion it is the Temperance cause. 



197 



Dexter. Did you ever hear them, or any one of them, admit 
this? 

Jlns. No. They say it is not so; but their acts show it, though 
they deny it. 

Dexter. What acts — name them ? 

Jlns. My opinion is, there was an out-door influence exerted to 
operate upon the Society, and keep up the dissatisfaction. 

Dexter. I dare say you think so, but what do you know to war- 
rant that opinion? 

Jlns. They denied in public, that temperance was the cause of 
complaint, but in private it was different. 

Dexter. I must now ask you to specify what you have heard in 
private. 

Jlns. Sir, I cannot. I have had but little conversation with the 
leaders. 

Dexter. Then why do you refer to private conversation? 

Jlns. I cannot recall street conversation. I have heard Mr. Wil- 
liams and Mr. W eld complain of the operations. I cannot recall 
facts. 

Dexter. Can you undertake to state that either of those gentle- 
men have complained in relation to the temperance cause? 

Jlns. I cannot. I do not recollect any thing they said or did in 
that respect, but they opposed him, and I suppose on that account. 

Dexter. Then your only ground for the assertion is, that they 
were opposed to Mr. Pierpont? 

Jlns. Yes, but I do believe they held different language in private. 

Dexter, Do you mean to revoke your answer to my question? 

Jlns. No, 

Dexter. Then you know no fact to support your belief? 

Jlns. No, only 1 believe it must have been so. 

To the Moderator. — I never had a conversation with them, in 
which they stated this was their ground. I have met them in the 
Jury room, the Caucus room, and the Church, and contested every 
inch of ground. I have had but little private conversation with 
them, though on friendly terms. 

Dexter. Would you, as one of the congregation, been satisfied 
with a minister who preached on the other side of slavery and the 
license law? 

Jlns. I should have been willing to hear him. I have heard a 
slave-holder preach. 

Dexter. I ask you if a clergyman who preached on that side, 
were your own minister, would you sit under him? 

Jlns. I should not. I like the freedom of the pulpit, and would 
not prevent his preaching, but I should not sit under such a minister. 

Mr. Chapman. Would you be willing to pav him as your minis- 
ter? 

Jlns. No, sir, I should not. I should leave the Society. 

The Moderator. Suppose you wished to remain, and he con- 
tinued to oppose your views, would you oppose him? 

Jlns. I should not. I should try to remove him . 

The Moderator. Then you are willing to have the pulpit free 
to those opinions in which you accord? 

Jlns. 1 am. I have a remedy if I don't like it; I can withdraw. 

To Dexter. — I never heard the opponents say they were unwilling 



198 



to have these subjects discussed in a proper manner, but I think they 
were. 

The Moderator. Should you have regretted the use of severe or 
improper language in the Pastor? 

Ans. If Mr. Pierpont had used improper language to the dealers., 
I should have regretted it. It would depend on the language used. 
It would not be a subject of regret to me if it was pointed to the 
business of the persons, so as to have it known who were alluded to 
in the Congregation. It, of course, must be known, from their oc- 
cupations. 

I entirely approve Mr. Pierpont's communication to the Society. I 
think that most of those friendly to Mr. Pierpont, would remove with 
him, if he should go. The reasons are given in the printed docu- 
ments. 

To Dexter — At a meeting of Mr. Pierpont's friends, of thirty or 
forty, it was talked over to raise his salary. It is understood that 
whenever he recovers his legal salary, it is to be repaid or taken as 
their part of the taxes. His legal salary, if recorded, is so pledged. 

I cannot say how many were in Mr. Pierpont's favor, in 1838. I 
mean there are 140 men. In all who were opposed in '38, and all 
that have left since, there are 49. His friends have gone up to 14(X 
It includes all pew-owners and pew-hirers, and all others that are 
male adults. In the other list of opponents by Mr. Crane, the male 
adults in families are not included. I left them to make their own 
list, and I made mine. 

I did attempt once to get the meeting-house for the Miss Grimkies 
to lecture on Slavery. It was opposed by those who now oppose 
Mr. Pierpont. I did not expect to get the house, but I thought it 
would do no hurt to stir up the subject. I applied for the purpose of 
getting up the agitation. I had the distinct object in view of getting 
the Miss Grimkies to lecture on Abolition. A meeting was called, 
and it was voted down. I do not recollect applying but once for the 
house, for an anti-slavery meeting. 

Dexter here read from the Records of the Society, April 24, 1837, 
petition of Francis Jackson for the anti-slavery convention to hold 
their meetings in this house — not granted. June 12, 1837, petition 
from Mr. Jackson, for use of the house for a meeting of Ladies on 
Abolition. Not granted. Witness says that is correct, the second 
application had escaped his recollection. 

Adjourned. 

Tuesday Morning, July 20. 
Mr. Jackson, called by Washburn, in continuation of his testimo- 
ny. When Mr. Crane went off he carried fourteen votes, or rather 
they went off with him, and the slavery party joined the anti-tem- 
perance party. Witness wished to explain an answer he gave yes- 
terday, as to judging from the acts rather than the words of the anti- 
temperance party, that temperance was the cause of their complaint. 
He then enumerated the several acts of opposition to Mr. Pierpont 
by iudividuals who were dealers as heretofore stated, which he at- 
tributed to their opposition to the Pastor on the subject of temper- 
ance alone. 

The Moderator. Did they not distinctly state to you that other 

considerations operated in their minds? 



199 



Jlns. I had very little conversation with them, and have no recol- 
lection what they said. 

Mr. Lothrop. Would the affairs of the Society have remained 
quiet, if it had not been for the sermon on political action? 

Jlns. I do not think they would. The sermon on the moral rule 
occupied the whole day forenoon and afternoon. I am not aware 
that there is any difference between the printed sermon and that Mr. 
Pierpont preached. 

[The printed sermon was put. in by Mr. Washburn.] 

Dexter. We do not admit that is the sermon preached. It can 
be had in fifteen minutes. 

To Washburn: — You do not put in that printed sermon upon the 
statement of Mr. Pierpont, that that is the whole sermon as deliv- 
ered ? 

Washburn. I put it in upon the statement of counsel, and of the 
witness. 

Dexter. To the witness. Could that printed sermon have oc- 
cupied both the forenoon and afternoon in the delivery? 

Jlns. Yes, sir. I am not aware that a word is omitted. I do not 
recollect any extemporaneous matter omitted in the printing. I lis- 
tened to it with deep attention. The sermon came upon my ear like 
rain in dry time. 

Mr. Barrett now called for the paper withdrawn yesterday, which 
contained the names of 140 persons, who Mr. Jackson believed were 
favorable to Mr. Pierpont. 

Dexter. Was not this placing too much on the opinion of one 
man? It must also lead to a protracted examination of each individ- 
ual, to ascertain his opinion now. The paper offered by Mr. Crane 
was not put in by him, but at the request of the opposite side. 

Mr. Elliot. The paper of Mr. Crane was a list of Proprietors, 
with a few exceptions. The list of Mr. Jackson is not a list of Pro- 
prietors, but of all who attend here transiently or otherwise. 

Mr. Barrett was desirous of having it admitted, because the 
other had been. 

Mr. Elliot pointed out the distinction between the two, and ob- 
jected to the reception being put on the same ground. It was not 
authenticated in any form of evidence. 

The reception of the list was warmly urged by Messrs. Pray, Bar- 
rett, Robbins and Waterston, and partly by Mr. Lothrop, and op- 
posed by Messrs. Parkman, Chapman, Elliot, and partly by Mr. 
Frothingham. 

Dexter. If this list goes in I must ask in relation to every name 
how long the person has been here, and all the facts. The list re- 
ferred to by Mr. Crane, in his testimony, is not in the case and was 
not put in by us. It was called for by the other side. Neither pa- 
per should be in, it was the most unsatisfactory kind of hearsay evi- 
dence. 

Mr. Gannett was desirous of learning how the Congregation 
stood affected on both sides, but a list of names was not satisfactory, 
unless it was put in, with conclusive evidence that the signers knew 
its object, and had pledged themselves by their signatures, as desiring 
that the Pastor should remain. He was willing to take the opinion 
of Mr. Jackson, as to the number in favor of Mr. Pierpont, as they 
had taken the opinion of Mr. Crane on the other side. The paper 



200 



was worthless, unless it was shown to contain no name that was not 
signed with the express understanding that he was now in favor of 
Mr. Pierpont. 

In answer to an inquiry, the Moderator said there had been no 
reception of the list referred to by Mr. Crane, as evidence in the 
case. 

Mr. Lothrop suggested that the paper should be handed to the 
Counsel on the other side, and they could examine it, and point out 
names incorrectly placed there, if there were any. No paper had 
been put into his hands, as Scribe, as a list of Proprietors opposed 
to Mr. Pierpont. 

Mr. Gannett, insisted that the paper offered by Mr. Crane was 
in. 

Mr. Lotkrop said it was not put in by the Proprietor's Counsel,, 
but furnished at the request of the other side. 
Mr. Gannett. Then it is in. 

Rand, had never considered the paper in the case but only the 
testimony of Mr. Crane, In the same way the testimony of Mr. 
Jackson was to be received, and not the list of names. 

After some further discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Elliot to 
lay the whole question on the table. 

A discussion rose as to the effect of this motion, if it prevailed. 

Mr. Barrett, said if that were done they should not get the pa- 
per. I want the paper, said Mr. Barrett, and I will have it, if I can 
get it. 

Mr. Gannett suggested that the paper of Mr. Crane should be 
witherawn, and this of Mr. Jackson be not admitted, and then both 
sides would stand equal in this matter. 

Dexter. Had no objection to proof of every name friendly to 
Mr. Pierpont, being given. He objected to a list going in, upon the 
mere guess of the witness, that they were friendly, to have the effect 
of a declaration on their part. He had no wish to keep out the fact 
who were for and who were against Mr. Pierpont. If Mr. Jackson 
would make out a list of those he believes friendly to Mr. P., he might 
lay it on the table, and the Proprietors would examine it, with the 
understanding that Mr. Crane was at liberty to revise his list, in 
the same manner. With this understanding, Mr. Barrett withdrew 
his motion. 

Charles A. Wells, sworn. About the year 1824, he manufact- 
ured Pierpont's Razor Strap. After making one or two tor Mr. 
Pierpont, he asked leave to take out a patent right which Mr. Pier- 
pont agreed to. Mr. P. never had any interest in it. 

John J. May, sworn. Is the Treasurer of the friends of Mr„ 
Pierpont. They associated in May last. Has received money enough 
and more than enough to pay Mr. Pierpont's salary up to the present 
time. There are on the paper presented by Mr. Jackson nearly 140, 
who I have reason to believe are friendly to Mr. Pierpont, and more 
than half, I think, who would adhere to him under existing circum- 
stances. 

I have paid to Mr. Pierpont $1075, from last January to July. — 
Mr. Pierpont agreed to receive $2000 as his salary under this ar- 
rangement. If Mr. Pierpont were to be removed, it is my opinion 
that 140 male adults and women owning pews would leave the 
church. 



201 



Cross-examined. They would leave from attachment of Mr. Pier- 
pont's principles. I mean the great question of a free discussion in 
the pulpit. That is the great question. I do not know how many 
of those are abolitionists. As things are now conducted, we suppose 
a free discussion is going on, and are satisfied. 

James Boyd, sworn. The meeting at Mr. Everett's in 1839, was 
at my instance. At that meeting Mr. Pierpont's lecturing on tem- 
perance was complained of, and other things. Mr. Pierpont was 
present, and five or six persons. Mr. Pierpont inquired "Gentlemen 
have you any charge against my moral character?" 

The answer was all round the table, " we have not." The offer 
for a mutual Council was made by me and with Mr. Pierpont's as- 
sent. The votes I offered were originally in Mr. Pierpont's hand- 
writing. If his resignation had been tendered then, I do not think it 
would have been accepted by a majority vote. As to the friends of 
Mr. Pierpont, who worship here, I believe the list is nearly correct, 
and have good reason to believe that 140 would adhere to him. If 
he remained, 40 or 50 Proprietors would go with him. Cannot say 
as to those who casually come here. I do not know how many more 
would leave if he remains. Some here now are dissatisfied. More 
would join if this matter were settled. 

Cross-examined. The votes originally in Mr. Pierpont's hand- 
writing were presented in my hand-writing. I copied them. I can- 
not tell all my motives for copying the votes. There might have 
been a cavil in the Parish, if the votes had been offered in Mr. Pier- 
pont's writing. He did not request me to copy thern. I do not 
think I consulted any one about it. I did not disclose to the meeting 
that the resolutions came from Mr. Pierpont. I did not think it ne- 
cessary. The account of that meeting in the pamphlet was drawn 
up by me, and is correct. Mr. Pierpont's letter proposed a mutual 
Council, and I offered the resolutions following it up. 

Dexter, here pointed out that Mr. Pierpont's letter proposed a 
Council on one point only, viz. whether the temperance cause was 
the main cause, and Mr. Boyd's votes proposed a Council at large, 
which was another thing. 

Witness. My opinion as to the feelings of the 140 friends of Mr. 
Pierpont is derived partly from conversation with them, and part- 
ly from conversing with others who have conversed with them. I 
cannot say whether as many would not join if the difficulty was set- 
tled one way, as the other. I did express an opinion in 1838, that 
the pastor ought to leave, on the ground of the disaffection of a few 
principal men. I have changed my mind on that point. There are 
principles at stake. 

Dexter. Were not the same principles at stake in 1838? 

Ans. They were in part. I have regretted the couse of Mr. P. 
not on my account, but because 1 saw it grieved others. His con- 
duct to me and my family has ever been satisfactory. I did hold and 
express the opinion that he would have done better to have kept more 
to his Parish. I disapproved of his sentiments and proceedings on 
Abolition. I grieved at the effect produced in the Society. I have 
remonstrated with him on the subject of temperance, and told him a 
milder course would be preferable. I had no doubt of his motives, 
but disapproved of the means he used. I did so not formally, but in 
said conversations. 

26 



202 



The Moderator. In what manner did Mr. Pierpont receive your 
communication ? 

Jlns. He vindicated his own course. 

Dexter. Were you not at Mr. Crane's house, when several char- 
ges were discussed? 

Jlns. I attended the meeting. Do not remember saying of the 
charge respecting the steel hone, that if it was true, he ought to go. 
I might have said so. Do not remember it. When I saw the char- 
ges that occurred to me as new. 

Mr. Lothrop. As to the inquiry by Mr. Pierpont, whether there 
were any charges against his moral character. Do you know any 
cause why that question was asked? 

Jlns. I do not. There was nothing said at that time, of anything 
affecting his moral character. It appeared to me that he had obtain- 
ed from them every thing he could, before he asked the question, and 
that his motive was to learn if that was all. I never heard his mor- 
al character questioned, before these charges. 

Mr. Lothrop. Did you not see an assential difference between 
Mr. Pierpont's proposition and yours to the meeting, for a mutual 
Council? 

Jlns. I did not. The difference was not pointed out in the Parish 
meeting. 

Ques. Did you consider your resolves rejected? 
Jlns. The documents will show. The resolves were postponed. 
Mr. Lothrop. I wanted to know how you understood it. 
Jlns. I refer to the documents. 

Daniel F. Child. The list of children in the Sunday School, 
amounts to about 100. The attendance 50. Mr. Barnard's School, 
since the Chapel was built has reduced the number. Mr. Pierpont 
visits the school once a month, and Teacher's meetings are usually 
held at his house once a fortnight. 

Witness offers a paper containing names of the Teachers of the 
Sabbath School, wishing Mr. Pierpont to remain. 

Dexter objected. Such an interference would lead very far, if 
third parties were to come in, and interpose their wishes, between 
the Parish and the Pastor. 

Rand. Were transient persons who accidently come here, and 
had no voice and no vote, to decide this question, on the Parish? — 
Who constitute the Parish, is the whole question, as to the party 
who has a right to be heard here. Who calls the Council, but the 
majority of the Parish? This was settled by the Supreme Court, 
and that none but the Parish had a right to call a Council, and be 
heard. He referred to the act of incoporation, which confines the 
Society exclusively to pew-holders. 

Dexter. We do not object to the opinions of the Sunday School 
Teachers, but we object to petitions, documents and arguments corn- 
ing here, and being sworn to, and put in the case as evidence. 

Mr. Sullivan. The Teachers come here in that capacity alone, 
and the only question for the Council, was, whether the Pastor's re- 
lation to the Sunday School has been well preserved. But they can- 
not testify as to the propriety of Mr. Pierpont's remaining or being 
dismissed. That is a question only between the Parish and the Pas- 
tor. 

Washburn, would confine himself to the conduct of Mr. Pierpont 
in regard to the Sunday School. This was not objected to. 



203 



Witness. In the opinion of the Teachers the Pastor has been 
entirely faithful. If he left, the school would not continue a month. 
There are seventeen Teachers. All worship here except one. They 
are not permanent, but constantly changing. I have been a teacher, 
except two years, for fifteen years. A large portion of the [teachers 
have been added since the difficulties began. The male teachers are 
of age. Twelve are female teachers of the seventeen^ Mr. Pier- 
pont's son is the Superintendant. Several of the females are mar- 
ried ladies. The list contains four men and eleven women. None 
of Mr. Pierpont's family who are teachers, have signed it. 

Cross-examined. The teachers are connected with families who 
would leave if Mr. Pierpont left. That is what I mean by saying 
the school would not continue. The teachers would leave. The 
school has fallen off a third since 1838. Before that, there were 
more than 200 scholars. When Mr. Barnard went away, over a 
hundred were left. Never came up to 150, after Mr. Bardnard's 
Chapel was established. This was some years before 1838. There 
were then more teachers. Mr. Pierpont never attended more fre- 
quently before '38, than he has since. 

To the Moderator The present dimunition of the School must be 
attributed to the withdrawal of families, from the Society, and not 
to Mr. Barnard's School going off. Mr. Pierpont's conduct in the 
school has never departed from kindness and conciliation. 

Charles White, sworn. Is a member of the church. Thinks 
that the resignation of Mr. Pierpont, in 1838, would not have been 
accepted. I advised Mr. Pierpont not to send in his resignation — 
that I considered it the great question of temperance, and not be- 
tween the Pastor and Parish of Hollis Street Church. I referred to 
the case of Mr. Hall of Dorchester, who had preached against rum, 
and who was then fair in the affections of his people. 

All the present occupants and pew-holders, except very few would 
leave if Mr. Pierpont did. Not a quarter would remain. I should 
sell my pew, if I could, and if not, give it away. Cannot state the 
number friendly to Mr. Pierpont. Presume that all are, who wor- 
ship here now. Most of them opposed retired a year or two ago. — 
Mr. Pierpont, I understood, was willing to relinquish any part of his 
salary his parishioners might think proper. 

Cross-examined. I have considered this as a temperance action. — 
In 1838, after Mr. Pierpont wrote the memorial to the Legislature 
against licences, one of the ablest documents in the English language, 
the complaints were made of his interference in matters of legisla- 
tion. From that time the difficulties increased. I should give away 
or sell my pew, if Mr. Pierpont went away, because, I should con- 
sider he was driven away, upon the principle of destroying a free 
pulpit. 

Dexter. But why give away your pew, before you saw whether 
another clergyman, acceptable to you, could not be settled? 

Jlns. I go upon the principle that intemperance, slavery, lying 
and all vices should be preached upon from the pulpit, and no one 
have a right to say it was persecution. I think the Scribes and Phar 
isees have been preached to, long enough, and we ought to come to 
sins of our own day. 

In answer to Mr. Lothrop. If Mr. Pierpont had been turned out, 
1 believe no pulpit would have been safe. I believe they would have 



204 



taken a circuit and gone through the city and turned every minister 
out. 

I was unwilling to risk Mr. P's. resignation in 1838, because I 
was not certain it would be rejected. We had a majority, but it was 
changing. I did not know but some of his friends might change. 

In answer to Mr. Bobbins. It was on the principle that a minis- 
ter should not be driven from his pulpit, for preaching on the topics 
around him,— that I adhere to Mr. Pierpont. 

In answer to the Moderator. Have never heard a sermon from 
Mr. Pierpont, I disliked or that gave me pain. I sometimes thought 
that in his correspondence there were some things too strong. 

Ques. Was it calculated to conciliate? 

Jlns. It is not very smooth, but would hurt nobody. 

Dexter. Do you think it would do them good? 

Jlns. It is what human nature would bring out, under such cir- 
cumstances, I suppose. 

Dexter. Then you approve of the language in those documents ? 

Jlns. I do. 

Mr. Chapman. Was it conciliating? 
Jlns. No, sir, I should say not. 

Mr. Gannett. To whom do you attribute the turmoil? 
Jlns. The opponents. 
Mr. Gannett. What, all? 
Jlns. No, sir. 

Mr. Gannett. Do you think they alone are to blame? 

Jlns. Why, not all — that would be too much — say 90 per cent. 

Mr. Gannett. That is what I want to get at. The ten per 
cent is on the friends then ? 

Jlns. I can't say they have done a single thing incorrect, but in a 
quarrel both sides are apt to be some in the wrong. 

To the Moderator. — I have not a doubt that temperance is three 
quarters of all our trouble. I know nothing improper, on either 
side, in the purchase of pews to get a majority. 

The friends of Mr. Pierpont have not made so much efforts as his 
opponents, because they have not got so long purses. They have 
done all they could, according to their means. The others have six 
times the means. If none had come in since 1838, who were not 
worshippers here, I believe the difficulty would not have happened. 

[Witness declines giving the names of the persons who hav e 
made this disturbance, but will answer if required.] 

Being requested to answer, he says: — My brother-in-law, Moses 
Williams, an excellent man, has done more than any other. He 
took an active part in 1838; I believe he did in 1839, but not since. 

Dexter. What has he done? 

Jlns. It is merely hearsay that he has taken an active part. It is 
only what I have heard other people say. I know nothing mygelf. 
Dexter. Well, what have you heard ? 

Jlns. Well, I hardly know what I have heard. I have heard it 
said, he said if Pierpont had not interfered with his business, he 
would have let him alone. 

Dexter. From whom did you hear this? 

Jlns. I am not able to say. 

Mr. Gannett. If Mr. Pierpont were removed by death, should 
you remain ? 



205 



Jlns. If the question of another settlement came up, as to tem- 
perance or not temperance, I should not be reconciled, if the minis- 
ter was to be restrained in preaching as Mr. Pierpont has done. If 
he was, I should sell my pew. 

Dexter, Has this feeling grown out of the course of Mr. Pier- 
pont on temperance? 

Jlns. Yes, sir; his course on temperance and other subjects. 

Mr. Sullivan. Do you consider that the other clergymen in the 
city have been unfaithful in not preaching on temperance? 

Jlns. 1 believe that if Mr. Pierpont had said one half that Mr. 
Winslow, (an orthodox clergyman,) has in his pulpit, there would 
have been still more disturbance here. 

Sullivan. Have you ever heard of any considerable portion of 
Mr. Winslow's Society objecting to his course? 

Jlns. I believe not. 

Mr. Sullivan. Do other clergymen engage in this topic as much 
as Mr. Pierpont has? 

Jlns. I rather think not. 

Mr. Sullivan. And yet you think the other clergymen have 
done their duty? 
Jlns. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lothrop. Should you insist on examining a candidate for 
the pulpit, as to his views on temperance and abolition? 

Jlns. I should, as much as whether he was a Unitarian or a Trin- 
itarian. 

Mr. Sullivan. Would you insist on his preaching on that topic, 
if he deemed it inadmissible ? 

Jlns. I should be satisfied, if he fell in with the general views as 
they now exist. 

Mr. Sullivan. Do you think, that considering all the circum- 
stances, if the Pastor had forborne in some respects, and acted with 
more discretion, the difficulty might have been avoided? Do you 
think him faulty in pressing this matter? 

Jlns. O no. it would have done no good to have preached upon 
distilling to a company of Dry Goods dealers. I think it was most 
needed here. I don't think he has ever been personal. 

Dexter. Do you mean he was not so in the sermon about ruin at 
Smyrna ? 

Jlns. That would be laid to any one in the habit of shipping rum 
to Smyrna, and so far it was personal, I suppose. It might be ap- 
plied to an individual. He was not a worshipper here then. His 
family might have been. 

The Moderator. How do you account for this church being 
affected so much more by Mr. Pierpont's course, than you suppose 
another clergyman's you have named, is, by a similar course? 

Jlns. In Mr Winslow's Society, there are but few dealers. I 
account for it because there are more here than in Mr. Winslow's 
parish. 

Samuel May, sworn. Is deacon of this Church. There are 
seventy communicants now. The church was organized in 1733. 
The whole number in 108 years added, was 543 — less than five a 
year. In 21 years of Mr. Pierpont's ministry, down to 1840, ninety 
were added — about the general average. In 1840, six were added. 
In 1841, eleven have been added, and one stands propounded. Of 



206 



the seventy members, I know that more than sixty wish Mr. Pier- 
pont to remain. I have conversed with them since this Council has 
been here. In 1833, Mr. Pierpont made a speech at Saratoga, 
which one of the New York papers reported, and in it said that Mr, 
Pierpont had called the dealers felons. I had a conversation with 
Mr. Moses Williams about it, and doubted if that Mr. Pierpont had 
said so. When Mr. Pierpont came home, he denied he had used the 
language, and wrote so to the editor of the paper in New York. I 
related this to Mr. Williams, and repeatedly urged him to see Mr. 
Pierpont. He finally did so. After this, they were not fully satis- 
fied. There was an uneasiness that Mr. Pierpont should take any 
active part, or considerably so, in the temperance movement. 
Things went on so. In 1838, I met Mr. Moses Williams, and told 
him I understood he was coming to the Parish meeting, to oppose 
Mr. Pierpont. He said he. was. He accordingly came to the meet- 
ing, and Mr. Crane offered resolutions which I have no doubt were 
in his (Mr. Williams') hand writing. I have repeatedly heard Mr. 
Williams say, I can't undertake to support a man who is trying to 
destroy my business. 

After this, the differences were discussed with Mr. Pierpont for 
three evenings, and nothing was said as to any charge affecting his 
moral character, or the purity of his public communications. During 
the discussion, Mr. Howard, (since deceased) said to Mr. Pierpont, 
with a great deal of warmth, these men are engaged in what they 
think an honorable business, and if you don't let them alone, they 
will not let you alone. He was very angry. 

Do not know that Mr. Howard was a dealer, or ever had been. 
Have an impression he may have been several years before, but no 
knowledge of the fact. 

Have had repeated conversations with Mr. Winsor Fay, not re- 
cently. He said Mr. Pierpont should mind his business, and let 
mine alone. In 1840, I heard Mr. Fay say of Mr. Pierpont he is a 

d- d scamp. I had said that Mr. Pierpont did not speak of the 

men, but of the traffick, to which he made this reply. I then told 
him it was useless for us to converse any further. 

Mr. Daniel Weld said, one day, that if Mr. Pierpont did not let 
this subject alone, he would be turned out of his pulpit, as Rev. Dr. 
Homer had been out of his for the same cause. This was in my 
counting-room, in 1839. I found afterwards that M. Weld was mis- 
informed, and that Dr. Homer had not been turned out. 

Until afrer the charges were made against Mr. Pierpont, I never 
heard any complaint, except on temperance. Of the present wor- 
shippers, nearly all are friendly. A few are not. I should think 
the statement of 1840 is correct. I have never gone over the list. 
A great proportion of the present worshippers would leave if Mr. 
Pierpont went away. I should, and my family. That is the feeling 
of a great proportion of the church and worshippers. 

In October, 1820, there was a sale of pews here. They sold 
for about half price, at $150 for a pew appraised at $300, a number 
sold at that rate. Pew property never has been high here. Mr. 
Pierpont did offer to abate his salary, soon after Sept. 1S38. He 
prepared a communication offering to give up the $200 out of the 
$2200, and 1 advised him not to send it, ns I thought it a small mat- 
ter. I also advised him not to send in his resignation. Am satisfied 



207 



it would not have been accepted then. In 1829, Mr. Pierpont went 
to the West, at the desire of Mr. Flint, who wanted a preacher of 
our faith to go there. I always supposed he went with the consent 
of the Parish, and heard no objection at the time. His parochial 
duties, especially to the poor, have been attentive, and constant, I 
never heard a complaint from the poor, for want of attention or 
kindness, and if there was any ground for it, I have been in a way 
to learn it. 

It was voted to hold an afternoon session and the Council adjourn- 
ed till 4 o'clock, P. M. 

Tuesday Afternoon, July 20, 1841. 

Samuel May, Continued. — Mr Pierpont never admitted that he had at- 
tended too much to local topics. His refraining from these subjects in 
order to conciliate his opponents in 1838 and '39, gave great dissatisfac- 
tion to his friends. 

During the excitement of the Alton affair, when Fanueil Hall was re- 
fused, Mr Pierpont alluded to it, and I said after the sermon, to him, I was 
sorry to see excitement brought into the pulpit. Perhaps in the early dis- 
cussion of temperance I did not go so far as he did. I have thought dif- 
ferently since. In regard to temperance I have gone on a little, but my 
views have undergone no material change. 

To Mr Loihrop. — Mr Pierpont did read his correspondence with the 
Proprietors to us, and it was approved. The sermon on moral rule seem- 
ed to rouse up the opposition. I saw nothing in it After that the cor- 
respondence was just such as such a state of things would bring out. 
Whether it was in the best taste each mind must judge for itself. He 
(Mr Pierpont) was naturally disturbed and excited by the circumstances. 
A great many little things made up the whole. Some who had engaged 
in anti-masonry and encouraged him to do so, afterwards blamed him for 
going into local topics. That was calculated to disturb him. Under the 
circumstances, I approved entirely of the correspondence. I did not dis- 
approve of it ; if I had I should have told him so, as I always do to any 
minister I sit under. 

In answer to Dexter. — Whether the correspondence tended to conciliate, 
in his opinion, witness says, he don't know as he went so far as to look at 
that. I admit he ought to have been conciliatory, and so far as things ad- 
mitted, I think that correspondence was conciliatory. 

Dexter. — I have nothing farther. 

To Washburn. — Mr Pierpont gave no pledge to refrain from these dis] 
cussions, as I understood his letter. 

Mr Lothrop. — What did you understand from that letter ? 

Ans. — Mr Pierpont said in his letter if he had engaged too much in 
those things, no one could regret it more than himself. He did not say 
he had done so. 

The object of the committee was to talk with him on having engaged 
in exciting topics. That was not my object. 

Mr Sullivan. — Then it was understood he had engaged in exciting 
topics ? 

Ans. — The committee might have so understood it, I did not. After 
the license law excitement, it was considered that the stakes were set 
down, and no conciliation could be had. I have never stated to the pas- 
tor that I had any doubts of his course or would have preferred a kinder 
one. The Alton case was the only instance I ever complained of in his 



208 



sermons, There was much excitement caused by his allusion to the N. 
E. Rum at^ Smyrna, and it was applied to Mr Fay. I was not at all dis- 
satisfied with that, and I recollect no other indiscretion, in twenty years. 
My only regret was that the gentlemen who complained should view it as 
they did. 

To Mr Barrett. — In regard to the Alton sermon my remark was that I 
regretted to see that excitement brought into the pulpit. He received it 
kindly. 

To Mr Gannett. — The predecessor of Mr Pierpont was not always dis- 
creet. 

Mr Gannett. — Did he use any expressions in the pulpit that were per- 
sonal, or were so received by any of his parish ? 

Ans. — Never ; I never knew Dr Holley guilty of any indiscretion, or 
anything calculated to offend in the pulpiU He was a bold preacher, and 
perhaps in advance of his day. 

Elias B. Thayer, Sworn. — Has attended here eighteen years. I 
went to Mr John Parker in 1839 to get a proxy to vote, and he refused, 
because he said he was told if they got rid of Mr Pierpont, he could sell 
his pew. I then occupied it, and rented it of Mr Parker. After his 
death, the son of Mr Parker sent me word that the estate must be settled, 
and he must remove the furniture from the pew. The next Sunday, I 
found the furniture, an old carpet, worth fifty cents, removed, and my 
crickets- carried off with it, to be sold at auction, I suppose. I was indig- 
nant, and would not touch bis pew after that. I applied to Capt White, 
and he said I could not have his. I then went to a man who had eleven 
pews, and he could not let me know if I could have one. Mr Weld, how- 
ever, said I might go in and occupy his, but would not agree for any spe- 
cific time, and I have sat there since. 

Henry K. Hancock, Sworn. — Is a friend of Mr Pierpont. In 1839,. 
learning the opponents were buying pews to change the majority, and 
supposing they had done or would do it, I sought an opportunity to sell 
mine, and I sold two, and took my money ; $300 for both, including fur- 
niture. I was to occupy one till March without rent. I sold the pews, be- 
cause I expected the opponents would succeed in removing Mr Pierpont, 
and I meant to hold the sum for a neAv house for him. 

Cross-Examined. — Mr White has been for five years completely a tem- 
perance man. I do not know that he has taken an active part in the cause. 
He has been active in the physiological society and the Graham system, 
and that leads to temperance. I let the friends of Mr Pierpont know 
that I was going to sell my pews. My impression was that Mr Pierpont 
would go, and I think others were of the same opinion. When Mr Pier- 
pont said he would go, if the parish desired it, he thought so; but on re- 
flection, he changed his mind, as I supposed. At the time I did think he 
would go whenever a majority should be against him. I understood the 
law, that he would then be obliged to go, but it appears it was not so. 

Edmund Jackson, Sworn. — Has formed no opinion as to the number 
of the Society who wish Mr Pierpont to stay. If he should go, most of 
his friends would leave; if he remains, those who have gone away will 
stay away, and religious worship will be supported by those who remain. 

Cross- Examined. — I bought two pews, the 25th and 28th of September, 
1839. I bought them because I wanted two votes. I am a brother of 
Francis Jackson. Had never owned a pew before, but had rented. Mr 
B. D. Emerson offered to sell me his pew I did not take it, and it was 
sold to Daniel Weld. Mr Emerson was not a friend of the pastor. 



209 



To Mr Lothrop. — If Mr Pierpont went away, I have no doubt of the 
ability or will of his opponents to maintain public worship here. If he 
remains, his friends will support him here. If Mr Pierpont should go 
away, his friends would go with him, and are able to form a distinct so- 
ciety, and support him. Whether they would, I do not know. I think 
there is such a difference of principle, the two parties could not agree to 
support public worship together. The difference of principle is, the op- 
ponents wish him to preach to order, and the friends to be free. 

In answer to the Moderator. — Never knew the opponents attempt to pre- 
scribe what he should preach. 

Dexter. — Would the friends of Mr Pierpont be satisfied with any minis- 
ter who should decline preaching on abolition ? 

Ans. — Some would and some would not. I do not think they would be 
satisfied with a minister who should think it his duty not to read abolition 
notices. I know of nothing improper in the purchase of pews. One per- 
son cast eleven votes in one of the meetings. I understood the pews 
were purchased by the fraternity of opponents. 

Washburn here read a paragraph in Mr Clapp's paper, in 1837, alluding 
to a piece of poetry by Mr Pierpont, and to the benevolent character of 
its author, to show Mr Clapp's opinion then. Also an original hymn writ- 
ten by Mr Pierpont at the ordination of Mr Mott. 

Washburn here said that their evidence was all in. 

TESTIMONY FOR THE PROPRIETORS. 

Dexter called William B. Fowls again. — July 12, 1827, the contract was 
executed by Mr Pierpont with me to share the two copyrights of the 
American Class Book and National Reader, in which it is agreed that the 
American Class Book belonged entirely to Mr Fowle. Refers to con- 
tracts of Pierpont and Fowle, with Richardson & Lord, selling for three 
years from 1830, the American Class Book, for which they are to pay ten 
cents a copy for each book they sell. This contract was afterwards con- 
tinued till 1837. 

Witness said he understood that it was stated by Mr David H. Wil- 
liams that he, Mr Fowle, sold before Mr Pierpont did. This was not so. 

Jan. 14, 1836, I sold to Mr Bo wen for $1400, in full for my half of the 
proceeds that might have accrued to me, if I had retained the copyright 
premium on each book. I sold no copyright ; but only my right to re- 
ceive copyright at ten cents a volume, for a specific sum. I thus com- 
pounded my right to receive ten cents a copy, for a gross sum, leaving my 
contract with Mr Pierpont untouched. We had jointly sold for a term, 
and I merely compounded my mode of payment, as if I had taken a sum 
for a lease of a house for five years, instead of receiving the quarterly 
rent. 

After I had done that, Mr Pierpont not only compounded the sum as I 
had done, but extended the lease beyond the term, without my consent, 
and left me at the mercy of the publisher. By his contract he extended 
it beyond the period of the copyright. The American Class Book was 
extended from 1837 to 1840. The papers are new to me, which I have 
seen here as contracts between Mr Pierpont and Mr Bowen. There are 
two contracts Mr Pierpont made with Mr Bowen which I never saw be- 
fore, and which show so entire a disregard of his contract with me, that I 
confess I was shocked when I discovered them. [The contract of '36 was 
read, in which for five notes of $5920 in all, Mr Pierpont sells all his 
rights in the American Class Book and National Reader, for five years, 
so far as the right to print is concerned, and refers to the half of the 
27 



210 



American Class Book in Fowle, which is to go to him until the copyright 
expired. 

In this contract I was entirely set aside, and my right to one half left 
entirely at the mercy of the publisher. He altered the conditions of the 
National Reader without my consent. It was sold till 1841, and he 
changed it to five years. This was compounding as to the sum of which 
I do not complain, but he went on afterwards and extended the time be- 
yond the expiration of the copyright, which expired in 1837, and he sold 
up to 1841. 

When I found Mr Pierpont's lawyer said I was in law with the author, 
and entitled to renew the copyright of the Class Book, (for such was the 
opinion of Mr Charles G. Loring,) who was consulted by Mr Pierpont, 
I then attempted to sell my part. 

Washburn objects to going into lawyer's opinions. 

Witness proceeded. — After I found out that Mr Pierpont had extended 
the contract up to 1841, without my consent. I then went to Mr Bowen, 
to get the most I could ; preferring that to prosecuting Mr Pierpont for a 
breach of contract. I asked Mr Bowen a thousand dollars for my half 
of the Class Book for four years, which he refused, and wrote me a very 
insolent letter. He offered me $800. He had agreed with Mr Pierpont 
to give him $290 a year for my part of the Class Book, if he succeeded in 
setting aside my right to renew the copyright of the Class Book, and Mr 
Williams now says the same terms were given to me which he gave to 
Mr Pierpont, when it was no such thing. If the whole of the right was 
decided in Pierpont, my half was to follow. 

Mr D. H. Williams was here called. — I said that Mr Fowle's state- 
ment was substantially correct, but admitted of an explanation. 

Mr Fowle. — The contract was with Mr Bowen, and not with Mr Wil- 
liams. 1 considered that Mr Pierpont violated his agreement by selling 
without consulting me, as he had engaged to do. 

[Much discussion here arose as to the construction of this con- 
tract, which more properly comes in the argument.] 

Mr Williams was here called to explain. — Jan. 14, 1836, when the con- 
tract was made with Mr Fowle, the National Reader was estimated at 
$300 a year, and the Class Book at $290. We made this contract for 
copyright. Richardson and Lord had bought the right to print, of Mr 
Pierpont. It came to us. We bought the Class Book for one and a half 
years, and the National Reader for five years. $2100 was the estimated 
amount to Mr Fowle. He wished to anticipate. We gave him $1400 
for $2300 as discount in anticipating the payment. If we had paid him 
at the same rate, in the second contract, taking off the discount, we should 
have paid him less than $800. The difference was merely the discount 
for prompt pay. 

Mr Fowle was now called, and explains it that Mr Bowen offered him 
$800 for four years for the same thing which Mr Pierpont was to allow 
$290 a year. — I cannot tell on what ground Mr Williams makes his cal- 
culations. When I received the $1400 I was willing to take it as the 
discount for my part, but I did not know what the amount was I should 
receive, if I waited. I did not understand it as an equivalent for my full 
share. 

Mr Williams here says he did not so understand it, and the intention 
was to put Mr Pierpont in the same situation as Mr Fowle, provided the 
copyright belonged to Mr Pierpont of the American Class Book. Calcu- 
lating the interest it would be about the same. 



211 



Mr Fowle states that he had agreed with Mr Bo wen for $1620, and 
should have received it, but for the letter of Mr Fletcher. 

Mr Williams replies that there was no difference in price in conse- 
quence of Mr Fletcher's letter. 

Dexter puts in a letter of Mr Fowle, in 1832, to Messrs Glazier for pub- 
lishing a book with his title in part, and infringing his copyright in the 
American Class Book. To this letter was a postscript written by Mr Pier- 
pont assenting to the letter of Mr Fowle, and acquiesced in Fowle's claim 
to the Class Book. 

Mr Waterston. — Could not Mr Pierpont, understanding the law to 
be in his favor, honestly set up his claim to renew the copyright? 

Answer, by Mr Fowle. — I do not think he could honestly set up a claim 
to the Class Book at any time, because I bought it of him when he wrote 
it for me. It was mine entirely, with all the benefit, and he had no more 
right to take it than any other of my property. He did offer to leave the 
law of the claim to Judge Story but not the equity. He was willing to 
leave the law upon the quibbles as to authorship, but not the equity be- 
tween us, and there we split. 

Mr Fowle here read a letter from him to Mr Pierpont, declining the re- 
ference on the ground that it conceded the quibble of authorship on which 
all Mr P.'s claim rested, and offering a reference of the law and equity 
to three persons, instead of the mere question of the flaw in the copyright, 
as between author and publisher. 

Mr Washburn read Mr Pierpont's reply, referring to the opinion of his 
legal counsel. 

Witness in reply to Mr Waterston. — I considered that in paying Mr Pier- 
pont for making the book, and assisting him, I was in fact the author. I 
gave him $100 for his name, because I believed he would be more careful 
in the compilation, but the book and the whole book was mine. 

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MR FOWLE AND MR PIERPONT. 

Essex street, 101, June 3, 1840. 
My Dear Sir, — An unsuccessful attempt to raise some of the needful upon 
our copy rights, has led me to think of the evils of the course we have so long 
pursued, that of working without any co-operation. The fact that our publish- 
ers have laid out their strength upon your part of their rights, has frightened 
or disenabled them from purchasing my half. The fact is, no doubt, that, by 
our agreement when we became joint owners, neither has a right to bargain 
separately. I think, I remonstrated when you first hypothecated the Na- 
tional Reader without my consent, but the other book was given to me as 
an offset. When that arrangement was terminated in May, 1832, my ex- 
pectation was that wo should co-operate as we had formerly done, and as 1 
think, more profitably; but, somehow, you have kept the start of me, and 
at last, 1 fear greatly to my disadvantage. So:ne years ago, when I wished 
to sell to Mr Bowen, and he was unwilling to pay what I thought reason- 
able, I hinted that I should find another publisher, but he had purchased 
your right, and as good as told me that I could not, or that be should pub- 
lish without my consent, or something to this effect. I took what he was 
pleased to give. Now I wish to raise money again, and I am told that they 
have expended their strength upon your half, and knowing that, as they 
have one half, I cannot easily find a purchaser for the other, they are in no 
haste to oblige me by purchasing. 1 suppose there can be no doubt that 
all that both have received since our settlement in May, 1832, should be 
equally divided between us, and half of what you have received beyond this 
day, or boyond the time for which I have sold to Mr Bowen, belongs to 
me, especially if I cannot sell my half for as much. 



212 



I do not write this statement as a preliminary to what would be a just 
claim, I think; but because I wish your aid in the matter. If I cannot fare 
as well as you do, you see at once that I must set up an opposition press, or 
forbid your publishers to print. [ understood that you had sold the rights for 
five years, and I made a calculation, and offer, but as I could not ascertain 
what you got, I ran the risk of offering at a less rate, and of course, should 
have been wronged had my offer been accepted. I offered the half for five 
years at 1800 dollars, and either copy right produced about as much ten years 
ago, to each of us. I know the times have changed but not in this ratio. I 
offered the entire right for 5000 dollars on a Jong credit for four-fifths of the 
sum, but this would not go. 

Now I suppose I have a right to ask on what terms and for how long you 
have disposed of your moiety, and you will really oblige me by giving me 
the information. 

Perhaps you may aid me in selling to Mr Williams, or buy me out, or 
advise me what to do in my urgent need. The contract between us says 
among other things, " the two contracting parties also agree to promote their 
joint interest as far as they have ability, no one party ever acting without the 
consent of the other, and each affording his advice and aid to the other, &c." 
My dear sir, an early "answer to this letter will greatly oblige 
Your friend and servant, 

WM. B. FOWLE. 



Boston, 6th June, 1840. 
My Dear Sir, — In reply to your note of the 3d, I hardly know what to 
say, but this : 

It would be extremely pleasant to me to aid you, by any counsel or co-oper- 
ation in my power, in relation to the rights that we respectively have in the 
books in question, and to promote as far as possible, your interests, as depend- 
ant upon those rights, or as liable to be affected by them. 

But, you are aware, sir, that there is, in my mind, a previous question; 
namely, what are our respective rights? This you may well remember, has 
been, already, the subject of a correspondence between us: and, till this is 
settled, in some way, 1 must go on entirely in the dark — a condition not the 
most favorable for giving counsel — in respect to adjusting points of interest 
growing out of the right in question. 

That exact and equal justice might be done to both parties in this case, 1 
proposed, between three and four years ago, to refer the question at law be- 
tween us to the decision of some one or more, in whose judgment both parties 
ought to confide — the higher the authority, the better would it please me. — 
This offer you then declined, for reasons then stated. Perhaps those reasons 
no longer exist, or, at least, exist in the same force. If not, perhaps you may 
now be willing to refer that question : and I now renew the proposal. And, 
that I may get at your views directly, as well as show you that I ask only what 
is right, I propose that we leave the question of our respective rights in the 
American First Class Book and the National Reader, to the decision of Judge 
Storv : each of us, in person or by counsel, presenting to him his own view 
of the law in the case ; — and then — the law being settled — I propose to let 
the Judge refer to a Master in Chancery the duty of determining under his, 
the Judge's instructions, the proportion of the proceeds of both the books 
which the parties, respectively, ought to have received, up to the present 
time. 

I make you, 6ir, this proposal, I do not go into any argument in the case ; 
knowing that we are, both of us clerkly men — (" Arcades ambo*') — and that 
each of us could say not a little in support of his own view of his own case. 
But I am not only willing — I am desirous, to let another, who better knows the 
law than either of us, determine which is the laio in our case : and that another, 
who is not liable to be affected in his judgment of right, by any interest of 
his own in the question, determine what is right. By their decision I am 
willing tobe bound v and, be it what it may, I wjll abide by it. 



213 



Pray, sir, let me hear from you, in the premises, as soon as convenient, an$ 
oblige 

Your friend and servant, 

JNO. PIERPONT. 

Mr Fowle, to Rev. J. Pierpont. 
Dear Sir — The spiteful blow you struck at me this morning was singularly 
cruel, and will cause me to make many sacrifices of property and of feeling, 
for it has struck at my credit. It was singularly infelicitous, for it was aimed 
at one who had refused unqualifiedly to appear against you, and who refused 
for a reason, which, coming from one you had injured, was not calculated to 
injure you, viz. "his full belief that you would one day do him justice." 
That charge in which my name is introduced was brought without my know- 
ledge or consent ; I never heard of it till Mr Williams communicated it this 
morning. 1 do not write this to deprecate your wrath, but to let you know 
in what relation we stand, and to say that, just in proportion to my distress 
now, will be my claim for damages hereafter. 

Your friend, if you say so, 

VVM. B. FOWLE. 

101 Essex Street, Aug. 5, 1840. 

Boston, 6th Aug. 1840. 

Wm. B. Fowle, Esq. 

Dear Sir — It gives me no pleasure, I assure you, to cause you to make any 
sacrifice, either of property or feeling; nor will 1, knowingly cause you to 
make any that ought not to be laid upon the altar of righteousness. 

There is either a singular infelicity of expression, or a want of good faith, 
on the part of one or the other of us, or we do not " know in what relation 
we st:md to each other ; for each speaks of himself as the party wronged by 
the other. 

My view of our case is this. There is a difference of opinion between us, 
upon a question of statue law — the American Law of Copy right. It is a point 
of some pecuniary importance to us both. In your note of 15th Sept. 1836, 
you ask me to give up the ground that I take, and, in form, concede it to you, 
by sending you a quit claim deed of the field in controversy. In my reply of 
the 16th, I advise you that I cannot consent to do this, but offer to refer the 
question between us as a legal question, to gentlemen learned in the law ; 
pledging myself to be bound by their decision. This you decline in your note 
of the same day, for this reason, among others, that you regard not as a question 
of law so much as one of morals, and give me pretty plainly to understand 
that you regard my opinion of a statute, as a proof ot moral obliquity. This, 
of course, closed the door against further discussion at that time} and thus the 
matter has lain, I allowing you to take the proceeds of the copy right of the 
American First Class Book, ever since June 23, 1827, as I havealong regarded, 
and still regard it, out of my pocket, purely and solely from my reluctance to 
enter into a legal controversy with a neighbour, for the vindication of my 
rights. 

And now, in June 1840, you address me again, asking my aid and council, 
not only in taking the process of the copy right, but in selling the right itself. 
That is, you enter upon a field which 1 verily believe is mine, both in law and 
equity, and take off its annual harvest three years in succession, nay four years 
— for I learn that you have anticipated the copy of 1840, '41 — and this I have 
allowed you to do rather than have a controversy with you : and now, forsooth, 
you ask me to help you, to a purchaser not of the emblements merely, but of 
the field itself. This, in my note of 6th June last, in reply to yours of the 3d, 
I give you to understand that 1 cannot do, because it is not yet settled between 
us whose is the field in question; and again I propose to leave this question 
of title to reference, naming particularly Judge Story, and engaging to be 
forever bound by his opinion. This in your note of 6 th June you again refuse, 
and again pretty plainly construe my opinion on a legal question into a moral 
offence. 



214 



This 13 but poor encouragement on my part for an amicable settlement of 
the issue between us. And now, seeing that my forbearnce for three years to 
press my claim to the right in question, is construed in your note of 6th June, 
into an evidence that I had surrendered it; and into a reason why it should 
never be pressed ; nay,, seeing that you consider my course in this action as an 
aggression upon your rights, and so represent it to a committee of Hollis 
street society appointed to draw up articles of complaint against me, that they 
regard it as sufficient ground of the charge to be preferred against me before 
an Ecclesiastical Council, that I am destitute of that integrity in my secular 
concerns, that is necessary to my respectability and usefulness, as a christian 
minister — now that you thus, as I think, take from me my right, and, as it 
appears, have furnished my adversaries with one of the weapons with which 
they are striking at more than my life — my forbearance is at an end ; and I say 
distinctly that I intend this question of title between us shall be decided. If, 
after this, I sin against you in this matter, it shall not be in my ignorance that 
I sin, nor in my misapprehension of tny rights or yours. Nearly four years 
ago, I proposed an amicable and final settlement of this question. You refused. 
Two months ago I renewed the, proposal. Again you refused, and that in 
terms little calculated to encourage further overtures for an amicable adjustment 
of the point in controversy. You would take your own course; andl am thus 
driven to take mine. As to the spitefulness of the blow that I have struck at 
you, in placing my cause in the hands of legal counsel, — my only remaining 
mode of settling a question that should have been settled, years- ago, and must 
be settled now ; — and as to my " wrath,'' which you are careful not to depre- 
cate, I leave them both to be judged of by any tribunal to which you may 
choose to refer the correspondence that has passed between us, on this 
subject. 

By the step taken yesterday I simply say " Mr Fowle, this field from which 
you have cut and carted off the grain these three or four years, I think is mine, 
both by right and by the laws of the land. I have stood by and seen you take 
off the crop thus long, rather than have a quarrel with you. You now want 
to sell the field, and you say hard things both to me and of me because I will 
not buy it myself or help you to a purchaser. Nay, you put a cudgel into the 
hands of those who are assailing me from another quarter, that with it they 
may drive me off from all the land I own in the world with a broken head in 
the bargain. Now I wish and intend to know whether this field is yours or 
mine, if it is yours, I will do all 1 ought, to confirm your title, or help you 
alien the estate. If it is mine, you must not only stop reaping, but you must 
bring back all the grain you have carted off." 1 cannot stand by and see you 
sell my estate to a third person who may be ignorant of my claim, without 
giving him to understand that I consent to the sale, and thus bar myself from 
afterwards asserting my claim as effectually as if I had joined you in executing 
the title deeds." That is the long and short of our case. 

Any proposition that you may wish to make in relation to the present cause, 
may be made to my counsel, Hon. Richard Fletcher. Whatever you may 
think of the moral integrity of his client, in this case, I am sure that you will 
not believe that he will wittingly give himself up as an instrument with which 
a "spiteful blow" may be struck at any one man, for the gmtification of the 
passions or the prosecution of the unrighteous claims of any other. 

Though compelled to appear, in this matter, as your adversary, I am not 
your enemy. 

J. PIERPONT. 



101 Essex Street, Aug. 8, 1840. 

Rkv. John Pierpont, 

Sir,— Before 1 received your letter of Aug. 6, I had written one which I 
now modify, that it may be more like an answer to yours. My object in 
writing again, previously to receiving an answer to a former letter, was to 
propose a reference of our clilU rencus which will be found again proposed 
below. 



215 



I regret to see in your letter a determination which I believe to be founded 
in covetousness, and which 1 hoped would have given place to higher motives. 
Now, if I understand our position, we are adversaries, and I am to believe the 
worst that I have hitherto only allowed jnyselfto suspect. You wish to throw 
the blame of this state of things upon me, because I have refused to refer the 
subject to " one learned in the law," as a purely legal question, but you are 
too much of a lawyer not to know that my assent would yield to you the pre- 
vious question of authorship, on the assumption of which the legal quibble 
rests. Had you proposed a reference in which the equity as well as the law 
should be considered, as it will be by a jury, much as I dislike to concede even 
the shadow of reasonableness in your claim, which any reference would imply, 
I think, for the sake of peace, and to procure a prompt decision, I should not 
have declined. Nay, I now offer (as I had done in the letter for which this 
is substituted) to leave the whole matter between us to a reference of not less 
than three persons, who shall have full power to settle definitely the differences 
between us, according to what they shall think to have been the original inten- 
tion of the parties, the equity, as well as the facts and the law to be fully 
considered. In asking this offer, I am guided by a willingness to confine what 
I think an error of judgment at least, if not a crime, to a more limited circle of 
witnesses; and by the counsel of friends who are unwilling to see us, contend- 
ing; but I beg you to be assured that in asking it, I have had no conference 
or alliance with any of those victims whom you consider your enemies, and 
for whose doings you punish me, nor is my abhorrence of your whole course 
of conduct in setting up and prosecuting your unrighteous claim, in the least 
degree diminished. 

1 shall not attempt to reply in form to your statement of the controversy, but 
I must make a remark or two upon the extraordinary figure by which you 
attempt to illustrate our relative positions. And first let me remark, that you 
assume the field, from which you would drive me, to be yours, but I have 
found no other mind to which that assumption is proof, and it seems to me to 
have been the duty of a reasonable and just mind to have settled the title, 
before preventing the occupant from reaping his grain, seeing you had long 
before acknowledged him to be the sole owner. If /should "take up the 
parable ' 1 should state the case, thus, You propose to clear up a portion of the 
national domain at my expense and risk, and you give me full power to take a 
deed in my own name, giving me a quit claim, without any limitation or reser- 
vation. You then clear up another field on your own account, and you offer 
me half of yours for half of mine, forever, for aught that appears in the deeds. 
We reap the grain of both fields together for a few years, as we had agreed 
always to do. But soon, unknown to me, you let or sell the whole produce of 
one of the fields for several years, and when 1 remonstrated, you tell me to 
make the most of the other field. You next sell your half of the produce of 
both fields without my co-operation, and leave me to fight for mine, as best I 
may, with the strangers you have made my partners without my consent. But 
at last, coveting the whole crop of both fields, you pretend to have found a flaw in 
my title deed, arising, if it existed, in your own disingenousness or dishonesty ; 
which flaw, if you knew it existed when you gave me your quit claim, you were 
bound as an honest man to remove, and which, if you discovered it afterwards, 
you were bound to remedy. On this flaw, assumed not proved to exist, you 
proceed to eject me as an intruder. I consider your conduct an aggression and 
resist. You propose to leave the question of the flaw, only, to a neighbor. 
I object, because I know vou never owned the field, and because your intention 
when you wrought for me and with me in preparing it, and our understand- 
ing, at thn time should be taken into consideration, in the mean time, some 
other neighbors, who are at variance with you, hear of these circumstances, 
and ask me if they are so, J, of course correct their errors and tell them the 
story as it is. They ask me to lend them the " cudgel," as you call it, which 
they see to be in my possession. 1 refuse to lend it, but nevertheless they 
publish my wrongs to show that those they complain of are not solitary. 

You then begin to plunder, my barn and to cart off my expected harvest. 
I treat you as a pirate, and lend the cudgel, or use it myself, as may best 
subserve the ends of justice. 



216 



The last sentence, 1 know is as yet prospective, but I thought the sequel of 
the parable ought also to be told. Let me add that you have not a higher 
opinion of Judge Story and Mr Fletcher than 1 have. Indeed, I have so good 
an opinion of the latter that Ido not believe he would have lent himself to be 
your instrument in inflicting the wrong of which I complain, had he known 
the true state of the case. I shall hope soon to hear from you in regard to the 
reference I propose, and, in the mean time, I will thank you to lend me the 
books that contain our mutual accounts as long as we co-operated. I will return 
them in a day or two. 

Yours, as far as duty permits, 

VVM. B. FOWLE. 

Wm. B. Fowle, Esq. 

Sir, — Seeing that in your eyes, I go so wide of the path of truth and equity, 
while walking according to the light that is given me, 1 have put myself under 
the guidance of counsel ; and, in the matter to which the last notes that have 
passed between us refer, I shall now take no further step without his approba- 
tion. To the proposal contained in your note of the 8th inst, just received, 1 
shall, therefore, make no other reply, than this acknowledgment of the receipt 
of it, till after consultation with him. 

The book of mutual accounts, of which you wish the loan, I rather think, is 
your property, if so, it should have been returned to you before, and, of course, 
J shall not expect you to return it to 

Yours, &c. 

J. PIERPONT. 

Boston, 10th Aug. 1840. 

Messrs Glazier, Masters and Co. 

Gentlemen, — When I inform you that I am the proprietor of the American 
First Class Book and also of the National Reader, you will not wonder that I 
was surprised to see a new school book, published by you entitled the " Na- 
tional" " Class Book." It seems to me that no one can doubt as to the motive 
which led to this union of the titles of my two books. I have been a booksel- 
ler, and know the power of names, and the advantage of having one already 
in vogue. I have reason therefore to complain of this encroachment upon my 
copy rights, which secure to me the title as well as the compilation. Again, 
in the style, form and general arrangement and execution of the book, you 
have evidently profited by the taste which was original in the two books in 
which 1 am interested. When these two books w r ere published there was 
hardly a decently executed school book in the country, and they have uncer- 
emoniously been made the model of dozens since. But I have especial reason 
to complain of you for publishing a book so exactly the counterpart of mine, 
without any acknowledgment of your obligations, i might possibly have 
borne all this patiently, as, except in the approximation to my titles, I have 
repeatedly done already, but I have other cause of complaint against you, and 
feel mysel/ called upon to assert my rights or see them taken away without 
even a tl thank ye." A very large proportion of your book, gentlemen, is 
copied from mine. What gives value to a compilation but the taste displayed 
in selecting the pieces and adapting them to the use intended. That you 
have to a great extent infringed upon my rights in both these respects if you 
deny, 1 am ready to prove. It is time for me to take a stand, and I shall do- 
so in the present case. My opinion is, and it is fortified by the opinion of 
others, that you are liable to the penalties imposed by law upon the infringe- 
ment of copy rights, but before asserting my rights, and seeking redress when;, 
in the last resort, it is offered, I am induced, as you may not have known how 
far your compiler had encroached upon the ground of others, to inform you of 
my views and of my determination ; unless you are willing in some satisfactory 
way to avert the consequences of the unfair and illegal use that has been made 
of* the books secured to me by law. 

Yours, &c. &c. 

WM B. FOWLE. 

Boston, Jan. 1G, 1832. 



217 



Dear Sir, — Please erase, add, alter, and make the above to suit your ideas, 
and return it to me as soon as convenient that, I may copy and forward it to 
G. M. & Co. W. B. F. 

My Dear Sir, — You have hit it exactly. I would not alter a word. I 
think it will make the gentlemen publishers fret uncomfortable a while. I 
hope you will keep this, or a copy of the same, and allow me to show it to 
R. L. & H. Yours, &c. J. P. 

Adjourned at 7 o'clock. 



Wednesday, July, 21, 1841. 
testimony for the proprietors. 

Timothy Tileston called and corroborates his former testimony and 
conflicts with Mr Jackson, as to the visits of Mr Pierpont to his mother. 

Samuel May called by Dexter. — The Alton Sermon was the only one 
he ever complained of. He never complained to Mr Crane, as he has 
stated. Never said to him that the Pastor was a fool. Mr Weld told me 
in my counting room, that Dr Homer was dismissed. I have never at 
any time said to Mr Crane that I was dissatisfied. I never said to Mr 
Henry Smith, I was sorry I had not left the Church two years before. I 
have bought two pews. My son John bought a pew, and I paid for it. 
Have not contributed to a fund to buy pews. Never knew of any. I 
have never, on the whole, found cause to disapprove of the course of my 
minister. 

Daniel Weld called again. I never said to Deacon May what he 
states I did, respecting Dr Homer, nor any thing like it Had I been 
asked yesterday whether Dr Homer was alive or not, or in, or out, of his 
Society, at the time Deacon May refers to, I should not have known how 
it was. I have a good reliance on my memory, and am confident I never 
said what Deacon May has stated. It never came from me. I never 
knew of any difficulty about temperance in Dr Homer's Society, and 
never alluded to it till this conversation came up. 

Deacon May here came on the stand to make a statement, not as ev- 
idence. He said that the conversation with Mr Weld was in his (Mr 
May's) counting room ; Mr John D. Williams, he thinks, was present, 
and what satisfies him he heard it there, is, that when he (Mr May) went 
home that day to dinner, he stated it to his wife and daughter. 

Dexter. — That is not a proper confirmation. 

John D. Williams called. I went with Mr Weld once or twice to 
Deacon May's counting room. We conversed on the business of our 
difficulties. I heard nothing said of Dr Homer. I know him very well, 
and if he had been named, I think I should have remembered it. If it 
had been said that Dr Homer had been dismissed, I think I should cer- 
tainly have remembered it. 

Cross-examined. — I have been at Deacon May's counting-room several 
times. I am advanced in life, but have no doubt I should have remem- 
bered this, if said in my hearing. 

Joshua Crane called. When last on the stand, I was not allowed to 
state my conversation with Deacon May. I will now state it, as I dis- 
tinctly recollect it, though it may be to my pecuniary injury, to do so. 

In the Trader's Bank Deacon May told me that he had talked with Mr 
Pierpont, and said it was folly to attribute the accountability of the effects 
of liquor, to the seller. I mean to be understood, that the theory of mor- 
al responsibility in the vender, which Mr Pierpont held to, was the sub- 
ject of our conversation, which led to this remark from Deacon May. 
28 



218 



After Mr Pierpont's return from Europe, I saw Deacon May, and ex- 
pressed my satisfaction at the improvement which had taken place in our 
pastor. I then had great hopes that every thing would be reconciled and 
the Society go on harmoniously. After the Alton Sermon, I told Deacon 
May I had lost my confidence in the Pastor. I asked him if he remem- 
bered what he had said to me as I have above stated. He replied he did, 
and regretted it as much as I did. 

After the letter from Mr Pierpont, through the Committee, I was again 
satisfied and disposed to give him a chance to redeem his pledge of re- 
fraining from exciting topics. 

I drew this resolution previous to the meeting, and showed it to Dea- 
con May. He expressed satisfaction at it, and I offered it at the meeting. 
It was as follows : 

Whereas, it appears from the report of the Committee and the document 
which accompanies it, that the Rev. Mr Pierpont is willing to conform to the 
wishes of his Society by giving up all extraneous subjects, and confine himself 
solely to his duties as our minister. 

Resolved, that we view his determination with great pleasure, and so long 
as he shall adhere to the implied pledge in his answer to the Committee he 
will have our cordial approbation and support. 

I offered it at the meeting. Mr Jackson objected on the ground that 
Mr Pierpont had made no pledge ; he had only said if he had done so. I 
said I considered that not as a quibble, but as an admission, taken with 
the whole letter, that he had done so, in the opinion of the Society, and 
meant to give them no further cause of complaint 

After the Alton Sermon, I met Deacon May in School Street, as I was 
going to the State House. He expressed regret at the Sermon. I told 
him E would never raise a finger again to support Mr Pierpont. I said I 
regretted I had been made such a fool of as to believe Mr P. would re- 
deem his pledge. Deacon May replied, " it is not you but the man who 
makes a fool of himself." This he said emphatically, and he may deny it 
as much as he pleases. I have the most distinct recollection of it, and 
repeated it immediately afterwards, as I can prove. 

Washburn. — That is not evidence. 

Dexter. — We cannot introduce it to support our own witness, but you 
have a right to ask if he did repeat it at the time, and to whom. We 
should be glad to have the question put. 

Witness. — In a conversation with Mr James Boyd and Mr Edward Jack- 
son, alluding to the charges affecting the moral character of Mr Pierpont, 
they said, if the charges were brought forward and sustained they would 
go with us. 

His sermon on the moral rule of political action, I considered personal. 
I was a member of the Legislature at the time ; and it was aimed at the 
proceedings of those opposed to the law on licenses. The subject was 
then before the Legislature. 

Within a month Mr Brigham (one of the Sunday School Teachers), 
told me that he had joined the Sabbath School Teachers, at the request 
of John, Mr Pierpont's son, and a fellow student. He said he did not like 
the preaching of Mr Pierpont. He is not a member of the parish. 

To Mr Pierpont.— I drew no inference from what Mr Boyd and Mr 
E. Jackson said, as to whether they believed the charges. We had then 
drawn up a report specifying the charges. I am not certain the -report 
was then drawn up, but we were speaking of the matters of complaint, 
steel hones, &c, and they said, bring forward your charges, and if they 
are sustained, we will go with you. 



219 



To Mr Gannett — I founded the pledge of Mr Pierpont, upon his let- 
ter agreeing to refrain from these topics, and his sermons of concessions 
after his return from Europe. I did infer from Mr Pierponts' saying if he 
had devoted too much attention to these topics, that he was conscious 
there were grounds of complaint on that head. I was told that I did'nt 
understand John Pierpont — that he meant to deceive as well as quibble. 

Mr Gannett, did you infer, when Mr Jackson and Mr Boyd said " if the 
charges were true," that they admitted they were true ? 

A. — I did not — that was different from the letter of Mr Pierpont. It 
spoke of his misgivings as to his own course, and taken all together, it 
was worded to make men of plain common sense believe he regretted his 
course, and meant to avoid it hereafter. [The witness here read portions 
of Mr Pierpont's letter of Sept. 20, 1838, to the Committee appointed " to 
confer with him on his duties and relations to the Society." Extracts 
read and referred to by Mr Crane.] 

" My own opinion has been, that by listening to the calls that have 
been made upon me, &c, — no less good might be done, directly or indi- 
rectly, to those who fell within, while more good would be done to those 
who lay without, the circle of my own peculiar people. Their opinion is 
different. They believe that my walks should be more restricted, &c, — 
and that the topics in which I show an interest should be more limited in 
number. Now I think that those of the Proprietors of the Church who have 
been habitually my hearers, will dome the justice to say, that I have never 
affected infallibility of judgment upon any topic; and when the question 
is in what way that can be done best, which all think ought to be done, I 
feel not bound merely, but most ready, to show great deference to the 
opinions and faithful counsels of those around me in the religious society 
in whose prosperity and moral improvement we have all a common in- 
terest, &c." 

" This expression of their views is entitled to, and I assure you gentle- 
men, shall receive, my most respectful attention. I feel that this is due 
both to them and to myself, for it is as counsel that I am willing to under- 
stand this expression of their views," &c. " I understand it as an expres- 
sion of their opinion as to some of the means that I have adopted, in the 
prosecution of my ministry, in reference to its object. 

" Now in regard to these, I have not unfrequently, had migivings myself, 
ever since I have stood in my present relations to them, knowing that 
my meaning was right, I have often doubted whether my means were the 
best," &c. "Indeed I have had many proofs of the fallibility of my judg- 
ment, in respect to the practical details of my profession, that I have come 
greatly to distrust it. I shall therefore look with great deference to the 
known judgment of a large number of my people, and divide with them, 
most willingly, the responsibility of these errors, which in the judgment 
of men, I may commit in so doing " &c. " If therefore," (and this said 
the witness, is what I rely on as following from all the rest before it,) "If 
therefore, I have entered too earnestly, or too exclusively, into a few topics, 
that from the circumstances in which, in these days, we are called to act, 
have become particularly 'exciting,' to the neglect of others equally im- 
portant and more peculiarly within my own province, it cannot be to my 
people a matter of deeper regret than it is to me ; and I shall faithfully 
endeavor to recall all undue attention from the former topics, and con- 
form to the latter what they may rightfully claim." 

Mr Gannett — Then I understand this is the ground of the charge of 
having, in that letter, deceived or misled a portion of his people, as to its 
meaning — "If he had entered too earnestly into these topics." 



220 



Washburn. — I contend that it bears a different construction, and is not 
to be construed into an admission of an error in this respect It is 
put hypothetically, and the whole was approved by its sanction by the 
meeting. 

Dexter. — The acceptance of the report at that time was not a test vote. 
It required the exertions of the friends of Mr Pierpont to get enough 
to have it accepted. It was voted for by dealers and opponents of Mr 
P. and was not a test vote, on the supposition that the Pastor was to 
continue in his former course. 

Witness. — I voted for it myself, as did many others, understanding it as 
I did. My opinion is, that if it had not been for that letter being under- 
stood as it was, had Mr Pierpont sent in his resignation, it would have 
been accepted by the meeting. Had I not so understood it, I should 
have voted against accepting it, but I voted for it believing him sincere 
in what he had written. Had the letter not been received as an assur- 
ance of a change in his course, his resignation, if then tendered, would 
have been accepted. 

In answer to Mr Gannett. — No other honest construction could be put 
on it, in my opinion then, nor since, on reflection. 

Henry Smith called. In 1837, in a conversation with Deacon May, 
in Hollis Street Meeting House, he was expressing his regret at the 
course pursued by Mr Pierpont. He stated distinctly to me that he re- 
gretted he had not left the parish two years before. I have not the slight- 
est doubt he said so. I recollect it most distinctly. Deacon May gave 
me no reason why he had not left before. 

Dexter, to Washburn. — You may ask Mr Smith if Mr Crane related to 
him, at the time, what Deacon May said to him in School Street, that Mr 
P. made a fool of himself. 

Washburn declined, it was not evidence 

Dexter. — It is certainly within the rule of cross-examination — you de- 
cline asking the question ? 
Washburn. — Certainly I do. 

Witness, in answer to the Moderator- — It was spoken by Deacon May, 
apparently with solemnity and regret It was soon after the first vote. 

Mr Waterston. — Did Deacon May give as a reason why he had desired 
to leave the parish, that there were so many distillers in it? 

A.— He did not. 

Moses Everett called. Mr Harrington's pew was offered at auction 
and sold for taxes, after the purchase of the first three pews. There was 
but one bid made, a dollar or so. It was number 8, appraized at $450. 
The Committee bid it off to the amount of taxes $37. It was afterwards 
redeemed by Mr H. reluctantly and upon much persuasion. He did not 
wish to have any thing to do with it. 

Cross-examined. — The purchase of the pew had nothing to do with taxes. 
The highest bid was one dollar, or five dollars and if knocked off at that, it 
was all the purchaser would have to pay. Witness says that Mr Jabez 
Fisher went into the flour business in April, 1836. His distillery burnt 
down some time before. He bought the pews in 1838. 

I had a conversation with Deacon May after the Smyrna Sermon. He 
regretted it was introduced, and said he had told Mr P. that if he went to 
the Custom House, he would have found that N. E. Rum had been ex- 
ported there for years, as any school boy could have told him. I have 
never been willing to let my pew, but have requested the sexton to let it. 
Authorized him two years ago. I left attending here a year ago last No- 



221 



vember. My family continued after. In 1838, there were but nine peo- 
ple, Proprietors here, who were dealers or distillers. They were Stephen 
Sergeant, Winsor Fay, James Bowditch, Henry Atkins, Nathan Viles, 
J. D. Williams, Daniel Weld and Moses Williams. 

[Mr J. D. Williams here said, he had retired from business and 
disposed of his interest, in 1836.] 

Witness. — There were then but eight. Those nine could give eleven 
votes, according to pews they owned. Four more had been in that em- 
ployment, Warren White, Moses Everett, Richard Childs, and Jabez 
Fisher. Some of them voted for Mr Pierpont in 1839, upon the accept- 
ance of his letter of concession. I gave two votes for him, on the princi- 
ple of that letter. Without the letter, my opinion is, his resignation if 
made would have been accepted. It was intimated that Mr P. would send 
in his resignation, and had he done so, my opinion is, it would have been 
accepted. If he had withdrawn, I saw nothing to prevent the Society's 
settling another minister. 

Francis Jackson called. The name of Eleazer Nichols on the list of 
friends, was procured by me. I urged him to sign it. He is very friend- 
ly to Mr Pierpont now. He signed the paper three days ago. He was 
reluctant to sign, but made no decided objection. I also urged Alpheus 
Carey to sign. He was disinclined to sign, but was very friendly to Mr 
P. I procured the name of Peter C. Jones, the last of Feburary. I have 
no question he is friendly. I did not procure William Hardwich's name. 
I know he is friendly. He did not sign, but I put down his name on the 
list. I procured the name of John Perkins, in March. Have no doubt he 
is friendly. 

Cross-examimed. — There may be twenty eight or thirty Proprietors op- 
posed to Mr Pierpont, who have continued to worship here since 1838. 
This side of the license law, I mean. That is the point I start from. 

Rand here pointed out the passage relied on to show Mr Pierpont's dis- 
regard of strict truth, in his reply of Oct. 26, 1839, page 44. The false 
statement Mr R. said was this. " In my first letter in reply to your doings 
in relation to me, I tendered you an issue, as to the main-spring or mov- 
ing cause of your annual proceedings against me. In the preamble to 
your votes, at your meeting, Sept. 30, you distinctly take that issue. In 
my second letter, dated Oct. 7, 1 demanded a Mutual Council to try that 
issue, and to settle all matters in controversy between us." Now, said Mr 
Rand, the letter of Oct. 7, contained no such proposition as the last. 
That letter of Oct. 7, 1839, said, p. 52, 

" I came to the conclusion, and declared to you and to the world, that 
my zeal and efforts in the temperance cause was ' the head and front of 
mine offending.' This you distinctly deny. Here then gentleman, we 
are at issue. In my letter I tendered to you this issue. This is the 
true issue in our case. It is now fully made up. It is ready for trial, 
and neither party in this controversy can proceed another step toward the 
first settlement of it, till this issue is fairly and finally tried. I am ready 
for the trial. I respectfully demand it." 

" If on this point you concur with me in opinion, and will appoint a Com- 
mittee empowered to make arrangements for a Mutual Council, before 
which you will carry the issue that is now made up between us for trial and 
final adjudication, there shall be no backwardness on my part." 

Here said Mr Rand, the only issue tended is to determine whether the 
temperance cause, was the main cause. Not a syllable on the whole mat- 
ters in dispute. And in this Mr P. is charged with want of truth, in de- 
claring that to be in his letter of Oct. 7, which was not in it. 



222 



Mr. Rand also referred to certain other parts of the reply, as being 
untrue, as well as to certain parts of the Remonstrance of Mr. Pier- 
pont, as also being false. Both the Reply of the Pastor of October 
26th, 1839, and the Remonstrance of the Pastor to the ex-parte 
Council, were put into the case; but the former being very long, and 
already in print, and most of the parts upon which the arguments 
turned having been quoted, it has been thought unnecessary and in- 
expedient to print it again here. The act to incorporate the Society 
and the records of the proceedings of the Society, touching this con- 
troversy, were also put into the case, and were as follows: 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

In the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and nine. 

AN ACT declaring and confirming the ineorportion of the Pro- 
prietors of the Meeting House in Hollis Ssreet, in the Town of Bos- 
ton. 

Sect. 1st. Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representa- 
tives, in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, 
That all persons who now are, or may hereafter be the proprietors 
of the pews in the Congregational Meeting House, situate in Hollis 
Street, in Boston, be and they are hereby declared and confirmed to 
be a body politic and corporate, by the name of The Proprietors of 
the Meeting House in Hollis Street. And the said Corporation 
shall be, and are hereby deemed in law, to be seized of the same 
Meeting House with the lands under, adjoining and belonging to the 
same, with all the privileges and appurtenances belonging thereto, 
reserving however to the several proprietors of the pews in said 
Meeting House, their right to and interest in the said pews respect- 
ively. 

Sect. 2. Be it further enacted, That the said Proprietors shall 
meet annually at the said Meeting House, or at such other place as 
their Committee may appoint, on the first Monday of September, 
and at such other times as they may be duly notified in manner here- 
after provided. And at said annual meeting, after having chosen a 
Moderater, shall choose a Clerk who shall be sworn to the faithful 
discharge of the duties of his office, and it shall be his duty to record 
all the votes and all the proceedings of the said Proprietors; also 
shall choose a Treasurer, and Committee consisting of three persons, 
and also two other persons shall be chosen as assessors, to be occa- 
sionally joined with the said Committee, to form a board of five as- 
sessors, for the purpose of laying assessments as is hereinafter pro- 
vided, who shall continue in office for one year, and until others are 
chosen in their room. Provided, however, if from any cause the 
said annual meeting should not be holden then, the said officers may 
be chosen at any other meeting duly notified for that purpose. And 
the said Committee shall notify any meeting of the proprietors, by 
causing a printed notification, stating the business of said meet- 
ing, to be delivered to each proprietor, or left at his dwelling house, 
three days at least before such meeting, or by leaving the notification 
in the pew of such proprietor, should a day of public worship inter- 
vene. 



223 



Sect. 9. Be it further enacted, That the proprietors aforesaid 
shall be, and they hereby are, authorized to repair their Meeting 
House, and to enlarge the same, or to take down their present Meet- 
ing House and erect a new one, and also to build a Parish House for 
their Minister, on their parish land, or to sell a portion of their said 
land, and to purchase or build a parish house on other ground, and 
to hold real and personal estate by donation or purchase, to the 
amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars, for the purpose of a Ministerial 
House with suitable accommodations; and also for such purpose as 
any donor or testator may prescribe; which amount shall be over 
and above the value of their house for publick worship. And said 
proprietors are also authorized and hereby empowered from time to 
time, to make such repairs, and to raise such sums of money as they 
may find necessary for the maintenance and support of the public 
worship of God, and for other parochial and incidental charges. 
And the said Proprietors shall be entitled to all the rights they have 
heretofore enjoyed, and shall be bound by all the contracts they have 
heretofore entered into. 

Sect. 4. Be it further enacted, That all monies voted to be raised 
by said proprietors, for the purposes aforesaid, shall be assessed by 
the said Committee and assessors jointly, or by the major part of 
them, upon the several proprietors of the pews, according to the rel- 
ative value of said pews, regard being had to their situation and con- 
venience, according to the best judgment and discretion of said com- 
mittee and assessors. And they shall make out a list of such assess- 
ment, stating the number of the pew, the name of the proprietor, 
and the instalment or instalments by which the payment or payments 
shall be made, and deliver the same to the Clerk, who shall charge 
each proprietor with such assessment. And the Clerk shall make out 
a bill against each proprietor, and deliverer the bills to the commit- 
tee, whose duty it shall be to apply for and collect such assessments. 
And the committee shall, from time to time, inform the clerk the 
amount they collect from each proprietor; and the clerk shall credit 
such proprietor therewith; and all the assessments and monies so 
collected, shall be paid by the committee into the hands of the 
Treasurer, subject to the order of the chairman of said Committee, 
for the discharge of the parish debts of said proprietors. 

Sect. 5. Be it further enacted, That all the proprietors of pews 
in the Meeting House aforesaid, shall hold their pews under their 
respective deeds, and the pews shall be considered personal estate. 
And, whereas the Deacons of the Church usually assembling for 
publick worship in said Meeting House, for the time being, have 
heretofore been the committee to sign all deeds of pews in said 
Meeting House, so shall they continue to be the committee for that 
purpose, and they shall convey by deed a pew to one (and to no 
more than one) person, to be the owner and proprietor thereof, at 
the same time. And if any proprietor shall neglect to pay his or her 
tax or assessment on his or her pew for the space of nine months, or 
be in arrears, the Committee shall be, and hereby are authorized to 
advertise the pew of such delinquent proprietor for sale for the space 
of three weeks, in one of the public newspapers printed in Boston, 
and then if all the arrears are not paid, to sell the same at public 
auction to the highest bidder, and deduct all such arrears, with the 
cost of sale, and pay over the balance, if any there be, to the said 



224 



proprietor. And any proprietor, his or her heirs, on leaving the 
Meeting House, shall first offer their pew to the Deacons and Com- 
mittee aforesaid, that the Committee may purchase the same; and if 
the Committee neglect to purchase such pew for the space of thirty 
days, then the proprietor is at liberty to sell said pew at his or her 
pleasure, to one person only provided all arrears due thereon are 
first paid — and all deeds and transfers of said pews shall be recorded 
by the clerk. 

Sect. 6. Be it further enacted, That William Brown, Benjamin 
Bussey, and Benjamin Goddard, or any two of them, may cause the 
first meeting of the proprietors to be called, for the purpose of 
choosing the officers of the said Corporation, and for any other pur- 
pose specified in the notification; the meeting to be notified in such 
manner as is provided in and by the second section of this Act. And 
it shall be legal for their present officers and Committee to continue 
in office until others are chosen by virtue of this act. 

In the House of Representatives, March 4th, 1809. This Bill, 
having had three several readings, passed to be enacted. 

Timothy Bigelow, Speaker. 
In Senate, March 4th, 1S09. This Bill, having had two several 
readings, passed to be enacted. H. G. Otis, President. 

Approved, March 4th, 1809. LEVI LINCOLN. 

Secretary's Office, March lbth, 1809. 
The foregoing is a true copy of the original Act. 

Attest: William Tudor, Secretary of the Commonwealth. 



ANNUAL MEETING. 

At the Annual Meeting of the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting 
House, on Monday evening, September 10, 1838, it was, on motion 
of Mr. Crane, 

Voted, That many members of this Society have viewed with deep 
regret the zeal of their reverend Pastor in those exciting topics which 
divide and disturb the harmony of the community, thereby alienating 
his friends and diminishing his usefulness as the christian teacher 
of this Society. 

That they believe the precepts of the gospel do not warrant him, 
as a christian minister, in interfering with the established laws of the 
land: but that the alteration of old and the adoption of new laws, 
belong to legislators duly elected for that purpose. 

That they believe he was settled as the teacher of the doctrines 
and virtues of the Saviour of the world, who did not interfere with 
the civil law, but whose object it was, to promote peace on earth and 
goodwill among men. Therefore, 

Voted, That a Committee of five be appointed to confer with the 
Reverend John Pierpont, upon his duties and relations to this 
Society ; and that they be requested to report at an adjourned meet- 
ing. 

The following gentlemen were accordingly chosen a Committee for 
the purpose expressed in the foregoing vote. Samuel May, Henry 
Bass, Richards Child, Joseph Hay, Abraham Howard. 



225 



The Committee of the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, 
chosen at their meeting on the tenth instant, have attended to the 
duty assigned them, and ask leave respectfully to 

REPORT: 

That they waited upon the Reverend Mr. Pierpont, and com- 
municated to him the votes passed at that meeting, and went into 
elaborate conversation with him, as instructed to do. 

The discussion occupied three evenings; and on the part of the 
Committee, great plainness of speech was used, and frank and full 
statements were made of the views and feelings of many of the par- 
ish. The Committee were heard with great patience, and replied to 
with the greatest urbanity and gentleness; and as a result the Pastor 
handed to them the document which they now communicate to the 
meeting. 

The Committee ask leave to state, that very early in the interview 
with the Reverend Mr. Pierpont, and at the commencement of his 
reply to the statements which they had made, he inquired, "if the 
gentlemen of this Committee felt themselves authorized, as a Com- 
mittee, to say that it is the wish of the Society that this commission 
should result in the dissolution of our present connexion?" to which 
the Committee promptly answered in the negative — adding, in the 
language of your vote, that our commission was, " to confer with him 
upon his duties and relations to this Society." 

Which is respectfully submitted by 

SAMUEL MAY, 

For the Committee. 

Boston, Sept. 24, 1838. 



To Samuel May, Henry Bass, Richards Child, Joseph Hay, and 

Abraham Howard, Esq'rs. 
Gentlemen: 

So far as the opinions of the Proprietors of the Church in Hollis 
Street are expressed in their votes, passed at their meeting on the 
tenth instant, as to the great object and end of the mission of the Sa- 
viour of the world, and consequently of the ministry of all his ser- 
vants, namely, "to promote peace on earth and good will among 
men," there is certainly no difference of opinion between them and 
myself. There would probably be no difference between us, as to 
the source out of which "peace on earth" must flow, namely, good- 
ness, or moral virtue ; in other words, conformity to the moral laws 
of God. Nor can there, probably, be any difference of opinion as to 
what is the instrument by which this conformity to God's law is to be 
wrought out, or effected, among men ; all agreeing that this work is 
to be done by truth — truth proclaimed in moral instruction, and truth 
shown in a virtuous life. On these several points, there is probably 
no difference of opinion between my people and myself. 

But, upon the question how this instrument shall be used, or ap- 
plied, in each of the countless combinations and changing circumstan- 
ces of human society and affairs, so as best to answer the great end 
of its application — the putting away of sin, and the introduction of 
righteousness and peace — there must be differences of opinion, even 
29 



226 



among wise and good men, wherever freedom of thought is allowed, 
as under a government, and with religious institutions like our own, 
it must be. But, difference of opinion on this question, involves no 
moral obliquity ; nor does the expression of such difference imply 
any departure, on the part of those who differ from us, from upright- 
ness of purpose or integrity of character. 

Indeed I do not understand, either from the votes of the proprietors 
or from our several free conversations, that any one of my people 
brings this as a complaint against me. If I am not mistaken as to 
what they ought to allow, and do allow me, they admit the honesty 
of my intentions, but differ widely from me on the score of the means 
by which my good intentions may be best effected. If in this I am 
under a wrong impression, nothing further need be said: for, if 
my people distrust my integrity of purpose, as well as my judgement, 
as to the best means of effecting it; if they believe that, not my head 
only, but my heart is wrong, — it were vain to think of conciliating to 
myself their hearty confidence by any concessions that I might offer. 
But if in this impression I am correct, the differences, between us, 
all resolve themselves into matters of judgment as to the means by 
which the object of our present relation may be best attained. 

My own opinion has been, that, by listening to the calls that have 
been made upon me in the course of events, or the providence of God, 
and acting in a somewhat wider field, embracing a greater variety of 
topics, no less good might be done, directly or indirectly, to those 
who fell within, while more good would be done to those who lay 
without, the circle of my own peculiar people. Their opinion is 
different. They believe that my walks should be more restricted, 
and my rounds consequently more frequent among them; and that 
the topics in which I show an interest should be more limited in num- 
ber. 

Now I think that those of the proprietors of the church who have 
been habitually my hearers, will do me the justice to say that I have 
never affected infallibility of judgment upon any topic; and when the 
question is, in what way that can be done best which all think ought 
to be done, I feel, not bound merely, but, most ready to show great 
deference to the opinions and faithful counsels of those around me 
in the religious Society in whose prosperity and moral improvement 
we have all a common interest. 

In the votes which you have laid before me, by direction of the 
Society, is expressed the opinion of " many" of its members, that 
some of the measures that I have hitherto pursued to that end, are 
not wisely chosen " to promote peace on earth and good will among 
men." 

Though I have often, heretofore, been favored with the counsel 
of individuals among my people — counsel by which I doubt not that 
I have been saved from many missteps — yet this is the first official 
expression of the opinion of the Society, with which I have ever 
been favored, in respect to the measures that I have adopted, or ought 
to adopt, in order to effect the great object of my ministry among 
them. This expression of their views is entitled to, and I assure you , 
gentlemen, shall receive my most respectful attention. I feel that this 
is due both to them and to myself: for it is as counsel that I am willing 
to understand this expression of their views; not as instructions, or a 
prescribing of terms. These, my people could no more think of giv- 



227 



ing, than I of receiving. I will not yet believe that the proprietors 
of Hollis Street Church would, if they could, hedge their minister 
up within limits definitely prescribed, and say to him, cc Hitherto 
shalt thou go, but no farther." 1 cannot, therefore, so understand 
the communication that they have directed you to make me. I un- 
derstand it as an expression of their opinion as to some of the means 
that I have adopted, in the prosecution of my ministry, in reference 
to its object. 

Now, in regard to these, I have not unfrequently had misgivings 
myself, ever since I have stood in my present relation to them. — 
Knowing that my meaning was right, I have often doubted whether 
my means were the best; and, compelled often to act promptly — as 
every one sometimes must, who acts with any effect — I have never 
doubted that, in many cases, had I done differently, it would have 
been better both for me and for my cause. Indeed, I have had so 
many proofs of the fallibility of my judgement, in respect to the 
practical details of my profession, that 1 have come greatly to dis- 
trust it. 

I shall therefore look, with great deference, to the known judg- 
ments of a large number of my people, and divide with them, most 
willingly, the responsibility of those errors, which, in the judgment 
of men, I may commit in so doing; while I cannot forget, and I hope 
that my people will not, that the only errors, in the judgment of God, 
are those which consist in bad purposes, or in a misuse or disuse 
of the means that he has given us to lead us aright in our good 
ones. 

If, therefore, I have entered too earnestly or too exclusively into a 
few topics that, from the circumstances in which, in these days, we 
are all called to act, have become particularly "exciting," to the 
neglect of others equally important and more peculiarly within my 
own province, it cannot be to my people a matter of deeper regret 
than it is to me; and I shall faithfully endeavor to recall all undue at- 
tention from the former topics, and confine to the latter what they 
may rightfully claim. 

Meantime, I hope that my people will allow me to suggest, that 
the closer intercourse which, through you, gentlemen, I understand, 
they ask me to have with them and their families, would be much 
more easily maintained by me, as well as more pleasant to both par- 
ties, were there more of reciprocity in it. It is hard to keep up pro- 
fitable intercourse — as it is pleasant conversation — where the efforts 
are all on one side. This suggestion, I am sure, will be taken in the 
spirit in which it is made; for deeply as I feel, and long as I shall 
gratefully remember the many proofs that I have seen, of a liberal 
spirit among my people, in providing for my extraordinary as well as 
my ordinary wants, — could I have enjoyed more frequently, at my 
own house, the society of the men, whom I do not often find at home 
when I call at theirs, I should have had abetter opportunity of learn- 
ing the state of their feelings on the subject now brought under my 
notice. 

I conclude with expressing my earnest wish, that the present com- 
munication of opinion and interchange of feeling between us, might 
be the means of bringing us nearer, and binding us closer together. 
I shall be most happy to do all that in me lies to make our relation 
profitable and pleasant to both parties: and it is my hope and fervent 



228 



prayer that it may be found, at last, to have been one of the means 
of our attaining to the end of our christian faith — the salvation of 
our souls. 

I am, gentlemen, respectfully, 

Your friend and Servant, 

JOHN P1ERPONT. 

Boston, Sept. 20, 1838. 

After the above communication was read by the Moderator, on 
motion of Moses Williams, seconded by Mr. Henry Atkins, it was 
Voted, that the same be printed, and the votes passed at the previ- 
ous meeting — and that this meeting be adjourned to Tuesday Eve- 
ning, Oct. 2, at 7 o'clock, to be held at the usual place. 



Adjourned Meeting, Oct. 2, 1838. 

At the adjourned meeting of the Proprietors of the Meeting House 
in Hollis Street, held at the usual place, on Tuesday evening, Oct. 
2d, 1838— 

Messrs. Daniel Weld, Henry Smith, and Henry Atkins, were 
chosen a committee to collect, sort and count votes. 

On motion of Mr. David Weld, the report of the Committee, sub- 
mitted at the preceeding meeting, was accepted — yeas 59, nays 41. 

Voted, That Deacon Samuel May, be a Committee to wait on the 
Rev. Mr. Pierpont, and communicate to him tbe result of this meet- 
ing. 

Voted, To adjourn to Tuesday evening next. 

Attest: DANIEL F. CHILD, Clerk. 



Adjourned Meeting, Oct. 9, 1838. 

At an adjourned meeting of the Proprietors, held at the usual 
place, on Tuesday evening, Oct. 9, 1838. The Moderator, Deacon 
Samuel May, called the meeting to order at half-past 7 o'clock, and 
reported that he had attended to the duty assigned to him at the pre- 
vious meeting, and that the Rev. Mr. Pierpont had made no com- 
munication in reply. 

By request of Mr. John Tyler, it was voted, to excuse him from 
serving on the Committee for Music, and Mr. V. Wilder was unan- 
imously chosen in his stead. 

Voted, That this meeting be dissolved. 

Attest: DANIEL F. CHILD, Clerk. 



ANNUAL MEETING. 

At the annual meeting of Proprietors of the Meeting House, in 
Hollis Street, agreeably to legal notification, on. Monday Evening, 
Sept. 2d, 1839. Dea. Samuel May, Moderator. 

After the choice of officers for the ensuing year, and the transac- 



229 

tion of other business, the follnwing question was submitted to the 
meeting by Mr. Winsor Fat, — 

"Whether, in the opinion of this meeting, the usefulness of the 
Rev. John Pierpont, is at an end or not." 

Which was referred to the next meeting — the question to be taken 
by yeas and nays. Adjourned. 

Attest: AARON H. BEAN, Clerk. 



Adjourned Meeting, Sept. 9, 1839. 

The question proposed by Mr. Fay, at the last meeting, and re- 
ferred to this, was withdrawn in favor of the following Preamble 
and vote, offered by Mr. Daniel Weld. 

Whereas, it is very apparent from various causes, principally 
growing out of a wide difference of opinion with regard to the ex- 
pediency of discussing certain exciting topics, the feelings of a large 
number of the Society worshipping in Hollis Street, towards their 
pastor, the Rev. John Pierpont, have been become estranged, and 
Whereas, it is all-important that to profit by religious teaching, 
there should be the utmost harmony and union existing, as well as 
perfect confidence of the people towards their teacher — therefore: 

Voted, That however much we may regret, as we certainly do, 
the existence of any cause, we nevertheless are constrained to say 
that in the opinion of this meeting, the usefulness of the Rev. John 
Pierpont, as our religious teacher, is so much impaired that the con- 
nexion between him and this Society ought to be dissolved. 

The foregoing having been read from the Chair, it was Voted that 
the sense of the meeting be taken on it, by yeas and nays, on written 
ballot. The Committee chosen to receive, sort and count the ballots 
subsequently reported the state of the ballot to be as follows: — 
Whole number One Hundred and Sixteen. 

Nays, ..... 58 

Yeas, ..... 56 

Blanks, .• . . . 2 

Voted, That when this meeting adjourn, it be to Monday evening 
next, Sept. 16th, and that the clerk is hereby instructed to transmit 
forthwith to the Rev. John Pierpont, a copy of the proceedings of 
this meeting. Adjourned. 

Attest: AARON H. BEAN, Clerk. 



Adjourned Meeting, Sept. 16, 1839. 

The Clerk read the proceedings of the last meeting, and stated 
that he had forwarded to the Pastor, a copy of the proceedings of the 
last meeting, and that he had received the following communication 
from him, which was read to the meeting by the Moderator. 

To the Proprietors of the Meeting House in Hollis Street: 
My Friends, — 

The doings of your body, at its adjourned annual meeting, held 
on the evening of the 9th inst. have been, according to your instruc- 
tions, transmitted to me by your clerk, and are now before me. 



230 



From the document communicated by him, it appears, that, at the 
previous meeting, on the evening of the 2d of the month, a vote had 
been offered by Mr. Winsor Fay, which, at the adjourned meeting, 
was withdrawn by him in favor of a Preamble and Vote, introduced 
by Mr. Daniel Weld, nearly to the same effect, to wit, that, in the 
opinion of the meeting, my usefulness, as the Minister of Hollis 
Street Society, had become so much impaired, that the connexion 
between the Society and myself ought to be dissolved. The vote, it 
further appers, was lost; the ballot standing, ayes 56, nays 58, and 
two blank ballots. 

On receiving this communication, the first question that I asked 
myself was, whether any reply was demanded or expected from me. 
The vote offered was lost: and, by no rules of proceeding, in either 
civil or ecclesiastical bodies, can the voice of a minority, however 
large or respectable, be regarded as the voice of the body. And, in 
the present case, since neither the voice of the whole body of the 
proprietors was heard, speaking by a majority of their number, nor 
yet the voice of the still larger body, the worshipping assembly, — 
which, in cases of this kind, cannot be heard at all, however deep 
may be their interest in the ministrations of the church, or however 
strong their attachment to its minister, — but only the voice of a 
minority of the pews represented, however firm and strong that 
voice might be; — I might not have felt myself called upon to make — 
perhaps not even justified in making — any reply whatever to the 
communication of your Clerk. But, observing that this expression 
of the opinion of a large minority was communicated to me by in- 
struction of the majority, and considering the general rule, that a 
written communication requires a written answer, I have concluded 
that it is your wish that I should make, to the document before me, 
a reply, that may be acted upon at the adjourned meeting, this eve- 
ning. This, then, I will proceed to do, as briefly as I can, and as 
distinctly. 

The Preamble and Vote, then, with a vagueness that may well 
serve as a model for a writer who studies rather to conceal, than to 
discover his real meaning, and which will not, I think, greatly en- 
lighten the future reader of those Records, of which they now con- 
stitute a part, as to the specific and real ground of complaint, in this 
case, as follows: 

" Whereas, it is very apparent that, from various causes, princi- 
pally growing out of a wide difference of opinion in regard to the 
expedienc}^ of discussing certain exciting topics, the feelings of a 
large number of the Society worshipping in Hollis Street towards 
their Pastor, the Rev. John Pierpont, have become estranged; — and, 
Whereas it is all importaut that, to profit by religious teaching, 
there should be the utmost harmony and union existing, as well as 
perfect confidence of the people towards their teacher; — Therefore, 

Voted, That, however much we may regret, as we certainly do, 
the existence of any cause, we nevertheless are constrained to say, 
that, in the opinion of this meeting, the usefulness of the Rev. John 
Pierpont, as our religious teacher, is so much impaired, that the con- 
nexion, between him and this Society, ought to be dissolved." 

That, my friends, is the document to which I feel myself called 
upon to reply. Some of us — probably not all — know what it means. 
But it has gone upon the Records of Hollis Street Society, and must 



231 



go down to the children of our children. Will they know? I will 
do what in me lies to help them; so that, by means of this contem- 
porary paper, while they feel after, they may haply find its mean- 
ing. And I will endeavor to make up for the obscurity of that docu- 
ment, by the plainness of this. 

The communication before me, then, gives us to understund one 
thing, and not to understand another. We understand from it, that 
there are some subjects, which it calls " exciting topics," which, in 
the opinion of a large number of this Society, must not be discussed 
in the pulpit; but, we do not understand from it what those snbjects 
are. Here, then, is the development of a principle, and the conceal- 
ment of a fact. Against the former I protest. The latter I will try 
to make manifest. 

I protest, then, distinctly and aloud, against the principle upon 
which this document is based; — namely, that there are some subjects 
which may be interdicted to the pulpit, on the ground that they are 
" exciting topics;" — for, if this principle is sound, the whole system 
of christian preaching is unsound, and it cannot stand up, an hour, 
against the pressure of the principle here disclosed — that "exciting 
topics " may, by the people, be interdicted by the pulpit. For, what 
topic, on earth, is so exciting as the religion of Jesus Christ ever has 
been, when preached either by Jesus Christ, himself, or by any one, 
ever since his day, who has preached it in anything approaching his 
spirit? 

As t understand it, the province of a " religious teacher" — the 
province, especially of a minister of that gospel which was given for 
the redemption of all men from all sin, of course comprehends all 
men and all sins. I understand that it covers the whole ground of 
religion and morals; — that, within this province lie all human inter- 
ests, individual or social, for time and for eternity : and that it embra- 
ces all relations of man to man, whether as a constituent part of the 
church or of the state, with all his duties in either, and all his obli- 
gations to both. I consider that the preacher himself, in regard to 
all social and civil rights and obligations, stands on the same ground 
as other men; and that he is as answerable as any other man to his 
country, his age, and the world, if he does not employ for their 
good, whatever power God has given him to bless them ; and, 
therefore, that no topic, in the wide compass of moral science, or 
religious or social duty, should be, — or, without inevitable injury 
both to themselves and him, can be — interdicted by a people to their 
" religious teacher." 

A pulpit that is profitable either to preacher or hearer, must be 
free — and, for myself, if I cannot stand in a free pulpit, I will stand 
in none. If my people do not already know this, it is no fault of 
mine. The service of God is perfect freedom, and there can be no 
true service of God where it is not. 

If I could consent that any topic should be taken out of the cog- 
nizance of my pulpit, it should be some one that is not "exciting." 
Where there is no excitement, there is — there can be — no progress, 
among a people; nay, there can be no spiritual life; for, with the 
soul, as with the body, life itself is a state of excitement. While 
man lives, either the baser or the better feelings of his nature will 
be excited, for they must. May no topic be discussed in the pulpit, 
that will excite the better feelings ? And may the baser never be 



232 



reproved, admonished, or rebuked, lest they should be excited? 
Shall the animal be allowed to run away with the man, because, for- 
sooth, he frets and chafes when he feels the bit? It is the very func- 
tion of the gospel to hold in the excited feelings of our lower nature, 
though they may be, as they probably will be, even the more exci- 
ted, for the time, by the restraint — " to bring under the body, and 
keep it in subjection:" and if this is not done, the gospel is preached 
in vain. 

If, on any subject pertaining to the well-being of his people, the 
minister of Christ finds their feelings already excited, and wanting a 
direction, it is eminently his duty to give them a right direction. If 
they have already taken a wrong direction, it is his duty to show 
them cc a more excellent way," and to put forth his best efforts to 
set them right. The minister is the moral engineer to his church, 
which it is his office to direct on the highway to salvation which God 
has thrown open in the Gospel. To say that, in his ministrations, 
he is to abstain from all exciting topics, and to handle only those 
upon which the feelings of his people are cold and dead, is to say 
that the engineer upon a railroad is to give all diligence to the con- 
ducting of his engine while the fire is out, and the water cold, and it 
is standing still; — but, when its fires are all in a glow, and its steam 
up, and its wheels are thundering along their iron track, — that he 
must not meddle with it then, because of its <c present excitement." 

May men be excited, all the week, without complaint — in their 
stores and in the streets, in their business and their pleasures, every 
where else, and upon every thing else — and yet must they expect to 
come to church to be lulled to sleep, by the music of a pleasant voice, 
upon the most exciting topic under heaven — the way to heaven, and 
the preparation for it ? 

No, my friends, so well do I understand the duty of my office, in 
this behalf, and so deeply do I feel its responsibility, both to God and 
to you, that, so long as I hold it, and wherever I hold it, no topic, in 
my view involving your welfare or my freedom — my freedom, — the 
first and last condition of my real " usefulness" to you — shall be in- 
terdicted to me, upon the ground that it is, — or that, by so calling it, 
it can be made — an et exciting topic." 

Thus, then, I protest against the principles advanced in the docu- 
ment that I am considering. I protest against it. I do not admit it; 
and to it I will not C£ give place by subjection, no, not for an hour." 
It is for you to say. — and I wish you to say this night — whether you 
can bear to have me tread this principle under my feet, while I am 
addressing you. If you can not bear this, God may show me a peo- 
ple that can. 

I have done with this principle. And now, in regard to its appli- 
cation to cc certain exciting topics" which, yet, as they stand upon 
the face of the document under notice, are exceedingly uncertain, — 
allow me to say, that, while, " by the grace of God I am what I am," 
shall not the consideration that " by this craft we have our wealth," 
take from the cognizance of any pulpit that I occupy that most excit- 
ing topic of the present day — the Giant Sin that I see spreading its 
desolations around me, — coming into my own flock, and seizing its 
victims under my own eyes, — and dooming me to witness and deplore 
their ruin while they yet breathe, and to consign to a hopeless grave 
their mangled bodies when they are dead. 



233 



For, that this is the exciting topic, by way of eminence, in re- 
gard to the expediency of discussing which there is such " a wide 
difference of opinion between a large number of the Society wor- 
shipping in Hollis-Street," on the one side, and their Pastor on the 
other, they know, full well, who, for two successive years, have 
brought before your annual meetings these complaints relative to 
" exciting topics," and, by these complaints, have striven — though 
as yet have vainly striven, — to restrain the freedom, and over-awe 
the independence, of Hollis street pulpit. There may be protesta- 
tions to the contrary of this. Decency requires that there should be. 
There may be, I know that there are, some few other and ancient 
griefs, caused by the independence of the same pulpit in years that 
have long gone by, — have gone by themselves, — but have left their 
griefs still fresh, and promising to be immortal. Attempts may, even, 
be made to show that the discussion of other " exciting topics" than 
this, has been "the head and front of mine offending," at least, to 
conceal from the eyes of the christian community, what the main- 
spring of these periodical movements is. The very document under 
consideration appears to me to be such an attempt, on the part of 
those who framed it. But, the passing events of the day, the pro- 
ceedings of the last year and of this year, the pursuits and interest 
of those with whom these proceedings originated, throw too much 
light upon the living and the present, to leave this a doubtful matter. 
From me, and from many of the proprietors of Hollis Street Meet- 
ing House, who know much less on this subject than I have been 
made to know and to feel, no language and no silence can "dissem- 
ble or cioak" the real spirit that is at the bottom of these waters of 
strife; — the spirit that is breaking up the peace, and threatening the 
integrity, of this christian church. 

I know that temperance, though the chief, is not the only exciting 
topic which has been the occasion of estranged feeling. This I have 
already admitted. I take no pleasure in again alluding to any other; 
and would only say that, in the only two discourses in which I am 
aware of having given offence, I have laid the cause of offence be- 
fore the world, by the hand of the press; and I await with compo- 
sure, the judgment that may be passed upon those discourses, by God 
and good men. I owe it, however, to the parties aggrieved, in each 
of these cases to say that the grievance consisted not in the doctrine 
advanced upon any particular " exciting topic," but in the fact that I 
touched it at all, after I had been told that I must not. 

In stirring and sifting times, like these, when the minds of men 
are acting upon some of the most momentous subjects that ever broke 
up the lethargy of a servile and sensual age; when the elements of 
society, its passions and conflicting interests are so violently shaken 
together; there will always be minor sources of uneasiness, which 
tend to disquiet the feelings of fellow-worshippers, and to estrange 
them from each other, or from the leader of their religious services. 
I am aware that there are, as there ever have been, some such among 
us, — some small streams of troubled water, finding their way through 
the pasture where this flock is feeding. But these attract attention, 
in the present case, chiefly from their having become tributary to the 
strong current that, at its annual overflow, has drifted into this 
church the document that I am now laying open to the sun and air: 
— from having allowed themselves to be sucked into the vortex of the 
30 



234 



great interest that is adverse to the Temperance cause. It is for the 
proprietors to say whether this church shall be drawn into the same 

vortex, — and carried down by it. The Pastor will see to it that 

he is not. 

If, now, I may be pardoned in so doing, I would respectfully sug- 
gest that, for the grievances communicated to me by my people, both 
last year and this, there are two remedies. Both are in their hands. 
First, if the individuals aggrieved are still a minority of the Society, 
they may find relief by severally withdrawing themselves from their 
pews; and, secondly, if they are a majority, they may seek it by dis- 
placing me from my pulpit. 

Another course has been suggested to me, — namely, that I should 
ask you to dismiss me from my office. As an inducement to do so, 
an offer has been made me, by individuals of your number, of a 
year's salary. This offer was made, I doubt not, in a spirit of pe- 
cuniary liberality, of which, while I have been connected with you, 
I have never been left without proofs. But however generously this 
may have been offered by them, it could not be accepted by my in 
any other character than as a bribe, to seduce me from the path of 
duty to myself and my profession. My bread is as important to me, 
as any other man's can be to him. But, in the present posture of 
our affairs, I can be neither begged off, nor bought off. I cannot 
purchase my bread by listening to any overtures made with a view 
of inducing me to desert, or to ask to be discharged from, the post at 
which I am now stationed, as a soldier of the cross, merely because 
that has become a post of danger and of conflict. And, besides, 
I have meat to eat which they who suppose that peace may be bought 
with money, know not of. 

It is for the Proprietors of Hollis-street Church, as a body, to say 
whether I shall, any longer, hold the place to which, as a body, they 
long ago called me. Because it chose to do so, the Society, as a cor- 
porate act, asked me to come. When it shall choose, — to-night if it 
choose, — it will ask me to go. 

However small my cc usefulness," as the religious teacher of the 
proprietors may have been to them, I cannot but think that the dis- 
cipline, through which I have passed as their minister, has been 
very useful to me, — and, at their bidding, I can part from them, and 
heartily wish them peace: — though I trust that they already know 
that, in a Christian church, as in the human soul, there must be purity 
before there can be peace. 

I humbly trust, my friends, that He whom, as a minister of His 
Son, I have served among you for more than twenty years, will still 
keep me, — as he now sees me, — prepared for the result of any action 
upon the premises, which you may feel yourselves prepared to take. 
Very respectfully, 

Your friend and servant, 

JOHN PIERPONT. 

Boston, 16th Sept. 1839. 



Voted, Unanimously that the Standing Committee be authorised 
to have the above communication printed, together with the docu- 
ments referred to, in the same — to wit: — 

The resolution of Mr. Fay offered at the annual meeting, the Pre- 




235 



amble and Vote offered by Mr. Weld, at the adjourned meeting, and 
a state of the ballot on the above. Also, 

Voted, That three copies be furnished to each Proprietor and left 
in the Pews. 

A motion to appoint a Committee to take into consideration the 
Letter from Mr. Pierpont, was withdrawn. A motion to adjourn for 
three weeks, after some discussion was withdrawn. 

Voted, That when this meeting adjourn, it be for a fortnight, at 
the same plaee, at 7 o'clock. 

A motion of Mr. Stephen Jackson, to reconsider the vote, whereby 
the sum of #500 was appropriated for the Singing Department, was 
decided in the negative, by a large majority. Adjourned. 

A true copy from the Records. 

Attest: AARON. H. BEAN, Clerk. 

Adjourned Meeting, September SO, 1839. 
The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, at half past 
seven o'clock, P. M. The proceedings of the last meeting having 
been read by the Clerk, Mr. J. Crane offered the following preamble 
and vote; — 

In reply to the communication of the Rev. Mr. Pierpont, of the 
16th inst. which appears on record, and which has been published to 
the world, it is only necessary now to say that the conclusion he ar- 
rives at, viz: that his zeal in the temperance cause is " the head and 
front of his offending" is not true; and against which conclusion we 
do now enter our solemn " Protest." 

We fully believe, from the tenor and spirit of that communication 
that the breach is so much increased that there is no prospect of a 
reconciliation, and that while he is with us there will be no "peace;" 
in which case, our "purity" will be endangered — therefore, with our 
sincere wishes for his future welfare, 

Voted, That the Rev. John Pierpont, be and is hereby respectfully 
requested to take up his connexion as Pastor of Hollis Street Soci- 
ety. 

After the above had been read from the Chair, Mr. James Boyd 
offered the following amendment. 

Voted, That this Society approve and will endeavor to sustain the 
principles of entire freedom and independence of its pulpit, as those 
principles have been, and we trust will continue to be, illustrated by 
our present pastor, Rev. John Pierpont. 

The question being upon the acceptance of the foregoing, was de- 
cided by written ballot, as follows: 

Whole number, 123 

Yeas, . 63 

Nays, 60 

A true extract from the Records: Attest: 

A. H. BEAN, Clerk. 
Voted, That the Clerk be instructed to forward Mr. Pierpont a 
copy of the proceedings of this meeting. 

Voted, To adjourn to meet Monday Evening, at 7 o'clock. Ad- 
journed. 

A true copy from the Records; Attest: 

AARON H. BEAN, Clerk. 



236 



Adjourned Meeting, Oct. 7, 1839. 

After the proceedings of the last meeting had been read by the Clerk, 
the Moderator, Deacon Samuel Mat, read a letter from George Gat, 
Esq., requesting that the communication presented to the last meeting 
from Mr John Knapp, be withdrawn, which was granted. 

The Clerk then read the following communication from the Pastor, — 
and it was voted that the same should be transcribed upon the records of 
the society before leaving his hands. 

To the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House. 

Gentlemen — The doings of your body, at its last adjourned meeting, 
have been duly communicated to me by your Clerk, and are now be- 
fore me. 

In reply, allow me to say, First, 

From the document before me, it appears that you have declared by a 
Vote of 63 to 61, that you do not approve, and that you will not sustain 
the principles of the entire freedom and independence of your pulpit, as 
those principles have been illustrated in my ministrations. 

As, in my last communication to you, I said, " If I cannot stand in a 
free pulpit, I will stand in none ;" I shall, therefore, till the present con- 
troversy is closed by a dissolution of our connexion, or till that vote is set 
aside, continue to supply my pulpit by such exchanges as I may be able 
to negociate with my brethren; — believing that their services will, at 
present, be more grateful to you than mine. 

I reply, Secondly, that in my last communication, I professed myself pre- 
pared for the result of any action that you might feel yourselves prepared 
to take. By your second Vote 63 to 60 you ask me to take action. For 
that I am not prepared. In my last, I proposed to you this alternative : 
" If the individuals aggrieved are, still, a minority of the society they 
may severally find relief by withdrawing themselves from their pews ; and, 
if they are a majority, they may seek it by displacing me from my pulpit" 
Your Vote, instead of displacing me, or taking a single step towards dis- 
placing me, respectfully requests me to displace myself. The Vote is, 
" That the Rev. John Pierpont be, and is hereby respectfully requested 
to take up his connexion, as Pastor of Hollis Street Society." That, in 
the first place, is not what I proposed to do ; and in the second, it is what 
of myself, I cannot do. 

For, 1st, my connexion with you is the result of a mutual contract ; a 
contract in which important interests and legal rights and responsibilities 
are involved ; and, as it takes two parties to make a contract, so it takes 
two to un-make it. My connexion, as your Pastor, is one, therefore, that 
neither party, alone, is competent to " take up," or to break up. 

And, 2dly, you will do yourselves the justice to consider that, in this 
controversy, I am not the active party ; nor, in my last Letter, did I pro- 
pose to be. In this analysis of the parts of society, the people have put 
themselves into the active voice, while the Pastor is thrown into the pas- 
sive. The enterprize of displacing me from my pulpit is yours. I have 
work of my own to do ; and have neither the leisure nor the spirit to do 
yours. If, when you come to take yours actually in hand, you find it an 
enterprize of greater magnitude than you had supposed, while you looked 
at it from a distance, you will, surely do me the justice to say that it is a 
work to which I did not invite you. If " the rowers have brought you into 
great waters," it seems to me that I am the last man into whose hand you 
should put the laboring oar, to bring you out 



237 

Nevertheless, seeing that this controversy is not pleasant to me, and that 
I desire for my own sake, as well as yours, that it should be brought to an 
end as soon as it can be, with justice to the rights and character of both 
the parties ; seeing, too, that we are, as yet, afloat upon the same bottom, 
and have a common interest in saving our ship from total wreck ; I will 
cheerfully do what in me lies to save the ship, whatever may befall the 
crew. 

To this end, then, we must, first, take an observation ; that we may 
know exactly where we are. 

As, in your movements against me, both last year and this, only the 
vague and general charge of handling " exciting topics" has been brought 
against me, without any distinct and specific allegation of offence against 
any law of God or man, I was left to guess out, as best I might, the riddle 
of my transgression ; or, to solve the mystery of my iniquity by means of 
such light as I could get from other sources. Doing my best, with my 
means, I came to the conclusion, and declared to you and to the world, in 
effect, that my zeal and efforts in the Temperance Cause was the " head 
and front of mine offending." This, in the Preamble to your last Vote, 
you distinctly deny ; and, against the truth of this, my declaring of your 
annual parables you have entered your solemn protest. 

Here, then, Gentlemen, we are at issue. In my Letter, I tendered to 
you this issue. In the Preamble to your last Vote, you have deliberately, 
publicly, and manfully taken it. This is the true issue in our case. It is 
now fully made up. It is ready for trial ; and neither party to this contro- 
versy can proceed another step towards the final settlement of it, till this 
issue is fairly and finally tried. I am ready for the trial. I respectfully 
demand it. Let the party, that shrinks from it stand out before the world 
where, by so doing, he will place himself, in the judgment of Him who has 
said ; " Every one who doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the 
light, lest his deeds should be reproved." 

In the proceedings that you instituted against me, a year ago, I forbore 
to tender you the issue that has now been tendered and taken. There are 
witnesses around me who know that "to spare you" I did this ; and that I 
entered a dilatory plea, at the suggestion of others, rather than lay open 
to the world the case as it then stood. For more than six years, individu- 
als of your body have been casting upon my spirit the weight of their re- 
buke. I have stood under the pressure, and have stood up, while it was 
the rebuke of individuals only, however heavy were the men that bore 
upon me. But now, that the weight of your Society, as a body, falls upon 
me, it shall crusli me — it shall grind me to powder — or I will throw it off, 
forever. 

My character, as a man if not as a Christian Minister, is my only live- 
lihood. It will, probably, be my only legacy to my children. Your cen- 
sures cast upon me, are matters of record in the books of your society. 
So shall be, — if I can get it there, — the award of an impartial tribunal, 
passing its judgment upon your course and upon mine. If that condemn 
me, it shall be a condemnation that neither I can take off while I live, nor 
my children when I am dead. 

As to the bar to which this issue between us shall go up for trial, it is 
obvious that, as no one is allowed to be judge in his own case, we must 
agree upon some competent tribunal ;— competent alike in the talents and 
impartiality of the men that compose it. Nothing but the decision of such 
a tribunal ought to be satisfactory to yourselves, or will be so to me or my 
friends. If, on this point, you concur with me in opinion, and will ap- 
point a Committee of your body, empowered to make arrangements for a 



238 



Mutual Council, before which you will carry the issue that is now made 
up between us, for trial and final adjudication, there shall be no back- 
wardness on my part, and no unnecessary delay, at any stage of the pro- 
ceedings, from the time that I receive the first communication of your 
committee, till the award of our Mutual Council shall have been carried 
into full effect 

Respectfully, 

Your friend and servant, 

JNO. PIERPONT. 

Boston, 7th Oct 1839. 

After the above had been read to the meeting, and some remarks made 
upon it by Mr Boyd, — it was voted to lay the same upon the table, until 
Mr Richards Child, should offer the following Preamble and Vote : — 

" Whereas, a large number of the Proprietors of the Hollis Street Meet- 
ing House have for a long time been dissatisfied with their minister, the 
Rev. John Pierpont ; and having signified their disapprobation at a*«ny 
times, and on various occasions, by personal interviews, and by vote sev- 
eral times, the result of which ballotings have varied from a large minori- 
ty and increased against him, until a majority have recently requested him 
to withdraw his connexion with the Society ; and in addition to which, 
many of the Proprietors who are his friends, and who are pleased with 
him as their Pastor, and who have ever voted and spoken in his favor, 
have frequently, the past and present year, expressed their opinions de- 
cidedly in favor of, and wishes that he would have peaceably retired with- 
out the unpleasant necessity of having to resort to a vote, in which many, 
from various causes of offence have, and must continue to appear against 
him ; and as he seems to us not disposed to duly appreciate the harmony 
and welfare of our once happy society, nor the voice of a respectable mi- 
nority in numbers, neither a majority of the votes of the proprietors; 
therefore, 

" Voted, That as the Proprietors of the Meeting House in Hollis Street, we 
do not wish the official and professional services of the Rev. John Pierpont, 
after this date ; and respectfully request him to take up his connexion with 
the Society as their Pastor and Teacher." 

After considerable debate, it was 

Voted, That a Committee of five, be appointed to take into consideration the 
communication received this evening from the Pastor, together with the above 
Preambles, &c, of Messrs Boyd and Child, and report at the next meeting. 

Messrs. Joshua Crane, James Boyd, Richards Child, Edmund Jackson, 
and W. W. Clapp, were appointed the Committee. 

Voted, That the vote passed at the last[meeting ,63 to GO, be printed, togeth- 
er with the communication ieceived from the Pastor, and that two copies be 
placed in each pew next Sunday. 

Voted To adjourn until Monday evening next, at 7 o'clock. 

Adjourned. 

A true copy from the Records, — Attest, 

AARON H. BEAN, Proprietor's Clerk, 



239 



Adjourned Meeting, Oct. 14, 1839. Deacon Samuel May, Moderator. 

The proceedings of the last meeting having been read — the Committee 
appointed to take into consideration the last communication from the Pas- 
tor, together with the preambles and votes offered by Mr Boyd and Mr 
Child, at the last meeting, make the following 

REPORT: 

The Committee appointed on the 7th instant, to take into consideration 
the Communication of the Rev. John Pierpont, of that date, which relates 
to the difficulties existing between him and this Society, have attended 
to that duty and beg leave to Report : 

That they regret exceedingly that from the stand he has taken, and the 
the exertions he has made to mislead the public with regard to the cause 
of those difficulties, that it has become necessary to disabuse the public 
mind by stating facts, which might and would have been given long since 
were it not for the disposition to " spare" him. 

It is well known that he was settled as our Minister with the understand- 
ing, as in like cases, that we should receive his undivided attention ; hav- 
ing, as all will allow, an unusually large salary, at least for those days — 
and while he confined himself to his ministerial duties it is believed that 
no fault was found ; — but when his attention was drawn from those duties 
by the making of Books, and the manufacture of Stoves, and Screws, and 
Razor Straps — and by his entering into every exciting topic that the inge- 
nuity of the fanatic at home, or the imported mountebank could conjure 
up to distract and disturb the public mind, such as Imprisonment for 
Debt, the Militia Law, Anti-Masonry, Phrenology, Temperance, and last 
of all, and above all, the Abolition of Slavery, a question which threatens 
more than all else the destruction of our Glorious Union, it would be 
wonderful indeed if his people were made of such materials as to sit qui- 
etly and tolerate such freedom. We believe, that if the public were to 
decide the question, it would say, at once, that no man could follow all 
these occupations and attend, night and day, to all these subjects, and 
still be a faithful Minister of the Gospel. 

It will be recollected by those who heard him, that in the last sermon 
he delivered previous to his departure for Europe for the restoration of his 
health, he admitted that his zeal and efforts in extraneous subjects, had 
nearly cost him his life ; that he acknowledged the great liberality and 
kindness of his Society in granting him leave of absence and raising 
funds for the accomplishment of his object, and stated unqualifiedly, that 
if God spared his life to return, that life should be devoted to his people. 
Of the manner in which that pledge has been redeemed, his people can 
be the only judges. But further: as late as September of last year, in a 
communication made to a committee raised to confer with him upon his 
duties, he says, " If I have entered too earnestly or too exclusively into a 
few topics that, from circumstances in which, in these days, we are all 
called to act, have become particularly ' exciting 1 to the neglect of others 
equally important and more peculiarly within my own province, it cannot 
be to my people a matter of deeper regret than it is to me; and I shall 
faithfully endeavor to recall all undue attention from the former topics, and 
confine to the latter what they may rightfully claim." Perhaps " decency 
requires" that we should not say that this is " a vagueness that may well 
serve as a model for a writer who studies rather to conceal, than to dis- 
cover his real meaning," but we ivill say it is either meant to be ambigu- 
ous or he has changed his mind, — for he now says he will stand in a free 
pulpit or none. 



240 



With regard to the published sermons to which he alludes, -we will only 
say, and we say it without fear of contradiction, and we say it too without 
meaning to call his veracity in question, that they do not contain all that 
was delivered — nor can the public generally judge of the excited manner 
which often leads him to promulgate sentiments which he afterwards for- 
gets he ever uttered. 

We trust that the Society in Hollis Street, as a body, are too well 
known to make it necessary to vindicate their character against the charge 
of laying upon their Minister, without cause, a "heavyweight of re- 
buke." That he has often been admonished it is true, and by "individu- 
als" who have been even more lavish in their contributions for his relief, 
than in their admonitions for his reform ; and which contributions were 
received without a word of complaint, and without asking the question 
whether they were or were not obtained by, or were the fruits of "feloni- 
ous''' dealing. 

To the proposition of choosing a Council we object, there being in our 
opinion, nothing for such a tribunal to settle. Mr Pierpont, in his com- 
munication under date of the I6th September last, says, — "It is for the 
Proprietors of Hollis Street Church, as a body, to say whether I shall, any 
longer, hold the place to which, as a body, they long ago called me. Be- 
cause it chose to do so, the Society, as a corporate act, asked me to come. 
When it shall choose, to-night if it choose — it will ask me to go." 

We have in respectful terms, made that request, with which he refuses 
to comply. We are therefore left with the only akernative, of giving him 
a dismission, believing it to be our imperative duty, which we have been 
told we should always do " regardless of consequences." The Committee, 
therefore, offer for consideration, the votes which are herewith appended. 
All which is respectfullv submitted. 

JOSHUA CRANE, ) 
RICHARDS CHILD, V Committee. 
WILLIAM W. CLAPP, ) 

Voted, That the Rev. John Pierpont, be and is hereby dismissed from the 
Pastoral care of the Society worshipping in Hollis Street, and that the connex- 
ion between him and this Society is hereby dissolved. 

Voted, That provided the Rev. Mr Pierpont acquiesce in the foregoing vote, 
a sum be granted him equal to his salary, up to the first day of March next, 
which the Standing Committee are hereby authorized to pay. 

Voted, That the Standing Committee and the Deacons of the Church be 
authorized to supply the pulpit with suitable Ministers, for such time and upon 
such terms as they may think proper until otherways directed. 

Voted, That the Standing Committee be empowered to call a meeting of the 
Society whenever they may think proper." 

After the foregoing had been read, Mr E. Jackson submitted the fol- 
lowing Minority Report. 

"The minority of the Committee, believing that there is but one proper 
course for those to pursue who wish to dissolve the connexion now exist- 
ing between the Society and its Pastor, and that, that course was distinct- 
ly pointed out, the last meeting, by the preamble and votes offered by Mr 
Boyd, and which are now before the meeting, decline offering any coun- 
ter report for the consideration of this meeting, but content themselves 
with protesting as they now do, against the report of the majority of the 
Committee, and the measures they recommend — leaving the responsibility 
of any such course with those who may choose to take it. 

EDMUND JACKSON, 

October 14, 1839. JAMES BOYD." 



241 



After considerable debate it was 

Voted, That the two reports presented to the meeting this evening be print- 
ed, and that three copies be left in each of the pews. 

Voted, That this meeting adjourn for four weeks from this evening, to meet 
at the usual place at six o'clock. 

Adjourned till Monday evening, November 11th. 

Attest, AARON H. BEAN, Proprietors' Clerk, 

Adjourned Meeting, Nov. 11, 1839. Deacon Samuel Mat, Moderator. 

After the proceedings of the last meeting had been read, Mr J. Crane, 
moved that the Report of the Committee made at the last meeting be ac- 
cepted. 

Messrs. Warren White, Richards Child, and James Boyd, were appoint- 
ed a Committee to receive, sort, and count the ballots — and the Committee 
subsequently reported the whole number of ballots to be 128 
For the acceptance 59 
Against it - - - - - 69 
A motion having been made by Mr Crane that the meeting be dissolved, 
it was voted 37 to 30 that the question be taken by ballot. Subsequently 
the motion was withdrawn. Mr James Boyd then offered the following 
resolution. 

Resolved, That the vote passed on the 30th September last, whereby the 
Rev. John Pierpont was requested to take up his connexion as Pastor of this 
Society, be, and the same is hereby rescinded. Arid that as a Society, we do 
approve, and will endeavor to sustain the freedom and independence of our 
pulpit, as illustrated in his past administration. 

Voted, (37 to 24,) that the vote upon the acceptance of the above Resolve, 
be taken by ballot. 

The Committee reported the whole number of ballots to be 72. For the 
acceptance of the resolution 67. Against it 5. 

Voted, On motion of Mr. J. L. Phillips, that the Moderator and Clerk, be a 
Committee to communicate to the Pastor the proceedings of this meeting. 
A true copy of the Records, — Attest, 

AARON H. BEAN, Clerk. 

SPECIAL MEETING. 

Monday Evening, March 9, 1840. 
A meeting of the Proprietors was holden pursuant to the following 
notification. 

Sir — A special meeting of the Proprietors of the " Meeting House in 
Hollis Street," will be held at the usual place, on Monday Evening next, 
the 9th inst., at 7 o'clock, to take into consideration the unpleasant state 
of the Society, and the transaction of such other business as may come 
before them. 

By order of the Standing Committee. 

A. H. BEAN, Clerk. 

Boston, Jan. 7, 1840. 

The meeting was organized by the choice of Samuel May, as Mod- 
erator. 

The following Preamble and Votes were offered by Mr John D. Weld. 

Whereas, it is very evident that for the last four months many of the 
oldest Worshippers in this society have felt obliged to absent themselves 
from the Meeting House ; that from the present aspect of affairs a break 
31 



242 



ing up of the Society is threatened ; and that harmony will not be restored 
while the Rev. John Pierpont remains its Pastor, therefore, 

Voted, That the Resolution passed on the 11th November last, where- 
by the Rev. John Pierpont felt authorized to resume the Pulpit of Hollis 
Street Meeting House, be, and the same is hereby rescinded. 

Voted, That we no longer wish the services of Rev. John Pierpont as 
Pastor of this Society. 

Voted, That John D. Williams, Daniel Weld, Richards Child, William 
W. Clapp, Warren White, and Joshua Crane be a Committee fully author- 
ized to attend to all matters and things relating to the Society, and to 
employ Counsel, if they think necessary. 

On motion of Francis Jackson, it was voted, that one of the friends of 
Mr Pierpont be added to the Committee just chosen— and that the Mod- 
erator of the meeting be so added. 

Voted, That a Committee of three be appointed to receive, sort, and 
count the ballots upon the' preamble and votes before the meeting ; — and 
that Committee declared the whole number of ballots to be one hundred 
and twenty-five. 

Yeas ... 68 

Nays _ ... 56 
Blank - - - - ] 

On motion of Mr Crane, it was Voted, that the Clerk notify the Rev. 
Mr Pierpont of the doings of this meeting — and it was Voted to adjourn 
this meeting for a fortnight from this evening, at half-past 7 o'clock. 

Adjourned. 

Attest, A. H. BEAN, Clerk. 

Adjourned Meeting. Monday Evening, March 23. 

The Society met agreeable to adjournment. The proceedings of the 
previous meeting having been read, the Clerk informed the meeting that 
he had received a communication from the Pastor — Avhich was read by the 
Moderator ; — and, is as follows: 

To the Proprietors of the Meeting House in Hollis street. 
Gentlemen, 

It is with great pain that I find, by the copy of your doings, 
at your special meeting, on the evening of the 9th instant, — which, in 
obedience to your instructions, has been sent me by your Clerk, — that 
the controversy between us is again opened, which I had hoped was closed 
forever. It is painful to me to be thus forced into collision with a body 
so large and so heavy as yourselves ; so large as you are in numbers, and 
so heavy as you are by reason of your wealth. I love peace — my own 
peace, and the peace of the church — as much as you do, or can : and so 
long as that can be preserved, without a sacrifice of duty or principle, 
there is little else that I would not sacrifice to preserve it. If there were 
any hope that my prayer would be heard, I would pray you, even now, to 
let me alone : to move on quietly, each of you in his own sphere of duty, 
and let me do so mine. If it were possible, and as much as lieth in me, I 
would live peaceably with all men. But — 



243 



A charge to keep I have; 

My calling to fulfil, 
To serve, in Christ, the present age ;— 

To do my Master's will, 
At duty's post I stand, 

And on his strength rely, 
Assured, if I my trust betray, 

I shall, forsaken, die. 

Much as I love peace, I hope that I may ever love right and duty more : 
and, if these cannot be maintained without another struggle, I must gird 
myself for it ; fervently praying God that it may be a short one. 

I would remark, then, while standing on the threshold of this controver- 
sy, and with a view of meeting a suggestion that, I understand, has been 
thrown out by some of those who have set themselves against me ; — viz : 
that, I am striving, in this case, merely to retain my place and its perqui- 
sites, — that, had I consulted my love of peace or of gain, alone, the pul- 
pit of your church would, very probably, have been vacated by its pres- 
ent incumbent before now: — for, there are those, both of my people and 
of my brethren in the ministry, who know that, a year and a half ago, I 
prepared a letter to you, tendering a resignation of my office, which I pro- 
posed to send to you, in reply to the votes passed at your meeting on the 
10th Sept. 1838, rather than contend against the force and the spirit that 
I saw arrayed against me, — although, at that time I should have gone out 
from you into a dark world, with no field of labor in sight upon which 1 
could enter, and no staff to support me for the rest of my pilgrimage, but 
— one that has never bent under its weight — my faith in the Providence 
of God. But, on further advisement and consideration, I withheld that 
letter, and it is still lying in my desk. And for the same reasons that in- 
fluenced me then, as well as for others, I have, within "the last four 
months," spoken of in the Preamble to the votes now before me, promptly 
declined even being considered as a candidate for the Presidency of a 
University in one of our sister states, the salary of which is much larger 
than that of the Pastor of Hollis Street Society: — for I considered then, 
as I now consider — that, in this unpleasant controversy, there is a great 
principle involved — the freedom — the independence of the American pul- 
pit. The question is — whether, in this country, where the pulpit is not 
propped up by a Bishop's staff, and does not lean upon a throne, it can 
stand upright upon the basis of the people's hearts. Is a. pliant pulpit the 
only one that can be sustained upon the " voluntary principle ?" Will 
the hearts and the hands of the people uphold a pulpit that exposes and 
rebukes sin, when that sin happens to be in favor with the monetary pow- 
er among the people themselves? /think they will. I think that to 
a great extent they have done this. Ours will be a leading case in set- 
tling the question whether this country must have a pliant pulpit or none. 
I would that the defence of the independence of the pulpit, in this case, 
had fallen into stronger hands than it has : for the cause and the times 
demand the efforts of the strongest. But, in my communications to you 
last fall, I endeavored to defend it with such measure of strength as God 
had given me ; and, I do not, now, propose to go again into a discussion 
of the general principle, but merely to sustain it in its application to our 
particular case. 

I may also be allowed the preliminary remark that, in this communica- 
tion, I wish to be understood as addressing the legal and not the actual 
body of the Proprietors of Hollis Street Church. The actual body con- 
sists of the Proprietors, or the major part of them. The legal body con- 



244 



sists of the individvals — or, as may be the case, the individual — who may 
hold the major part of the pews. In the actual body of the Proprietors, 
there would be a vote to every man. In the legal, there is a vote to every 
pew. This, as I cannot but think, is an infelicity in the fundamental laws 
of an institution designed for the spiritual improvement of men; in as 
much as it may subject the moral advantage of many to the monetary pow- 
er of a few : — an infelicity which, were it found in all the churches of this 
city, would bring them all, at once, under the control of a few of its mer- 
chant princes. Nay, if all the twentysix Congregational Churches of 
Boston Avere standing upon the same platform as this, in the article regula- 
ting votes, there is a single individual of your number, who, if he could be 
brought so to use his power — as we all know that he could never be — 
could, with his own right hand, thrust out from his pulpit every Congre- 
gational Minister in the city, and lock the doors of the church both against 
him and his people. Perhaps we may see, by and by, how this power — 
this monetary power, — not the power of this individual — has been brought 
to bear upon our case, when I come, as I now do, to the consideration of 
the votes passed at your last special meeting. 

And, in what I have to say of these, I beg, Gentlemen, that without of- 
fence, you will allow me to speak with perfect plainness and directness : 
and if, in saying just what I mean, I disturb or hurt your feelings, I pray 
you to consider that that is not my object, but an inevitable accident to 
that which is my object, viz. to set you right, and to keep myself so. I 
would do you good and not evil ; — and I will studiously seek to do you no 
injustice while I am taking care that you do me none. The simple truth 
is, that, in both these votes, that bear directly upon myself, you have taken 
a wrong position, — a position from which you must retire ; for, in it, you 
cannot safely stand still, and from it you cannot go forward without cer- 
tain defeat. I do not say that, in attempting to displace me from my pul- 
pit, you have undertaken a wrong thing ; but that you have gone about it 
in a wrong way. This, sooner or later, you will see. 

I shall, first, notice the Vote which, though second in order, is first in 
its importance. 

" Voted, That we no longer wish the services of the Rev. John Pier- 
pont, as Pastor of this Society." 

That this Vote is a true expression of your wishes, I cannot doubt. 
But there is a line in one of the Hymns, sung in our Church — 

" Not what we wish, but what we want," — 
that suggests an important truth in morals ; — that we may sometimes want 
what we do not wish for. The world wanted the Gospel of Jesus Christ 
long before it wished for it. The Christian Ministry is, to this day, wish- 
ed for much less than it is wanted. And I have never learned that, in 
either medicine or law, the counsel of the professional adviser is to be 
squared, of course, by the patient's or the client's wishes. Do you tell 
the gentlemen of those professions what opinions they must give you, 
when you go to consult them ? Were you so unwise as to do so, would 
they be so much more unwise as to prostitute their professions by making 
your wishes the rule of their counsel ? Neither will I so prostitute mine. 
If you wish more faithfulness in counsels pertaining to the body than to 
the soul, consult other counsel. Though you do not wish, you yet may 
want my services as your pastor, at least till I may have been the means 

of your learning a lesson oh, how hard for the men of this generation 

to learn ! that, mighty as Mammon, the God of this age, is, he is yet 

not almighty :— that, powerful as money is, there are some things which 



245 



money cannot do. That it cannot muzzle your pulpit, I have good hope 
that you may have already learned : and, if you yet learn from me that it 
cannot displace its occupant by merely wishing him away, — however un- 
profitable my ministry may hitherto have been to your religious interests, 
— I cannot think that my labors, with you, will have been altogether in 
vain, in the Lord. 

But, Gentlemen, this vote discovers not only some misconception on 
your part, as to the object of the Christian Ministry ; it shows also a great 
misapprehension both of my rights and of your own powers. You seem 
not to have learned, — or to have forgotten — that there are two parties to 
the contract between you and myself ; and that, in the eye of the law, 
these parties are equal : — that if you have rights, so also, have I : — that if 
I am under obligations to you, so also are you to me ; and that you can 
no more dissolve the relation based upon this contract, without my con- 
sent, than I could either dissolve it or constitute it without yours. Aside 
from the act of God, which shall dissolve all the contracts and all the re- 
lations of life, there are but two ways in which the contract between us 
can be set aside : — by agreement of parties, and by process of law. If, in 
neither of these two ways it is set aside, it must stand as it is. But neith- 
er of these ways is attempted in the vote before me ; and, as it is equally 
without the sanction of law, and in derogation of my rights, I trust that I 
shall be excused if I treat it as altogether nugatory. 

Void, however, and of none effect, as this vote is, as against the con- 
tract between us, it has great force, especially when associated with the 
rest of the proceedings when it was passed, in disclosing to the world the 
reason why it was passed. The future reader of the Records, of which it 
now forms a part, will ask what could have been the cause or reason of a 
vote so little considerate of the powers or rights of the parties to be af- 
fected by it ? Such a reader, unacquainted with the contemporary histo- 
ry of the times in general, and of this society in particular, might ask 
himself — as I now ask you Gentlemen, Why was this vote passed ? It is 
a vote which, when read by those who are to come after us, will deeply 
affect, for good or ill, the character of the parties concerned in it. At 
this moment, it may, or may not affect my pecuniary interests ; — and them 
I may not be careful or able to defend. But, at a future day, it may af- 
fect rights and interests much more important to me — those of profession- 
al character — and them I can defend and will. As this case is to go to 
posterity, I wish to give posterity the advantage of all the light which 
your own doings throw upon it ; and the votes before me, though they 
have no power to execute the sentence that you have passed upon me, are 
excellent witnesses as to the real ground of my condemnation. 

What, then, is the cause of action, in the present case ? For this I look , 
to the Preamble to the Votes. Of what does that complain ? Have I 
been guilty of any such gross immorality as, in the view of the laws, 
either of God or man, renders me unworthy to perform the duties of my 
sacred office? I see no declaration to that effect. Why not declare it? 
You ought not to let your mercy prevail over your love of justice. If I 
am a wolf in sheep's clothing, you owe it to your Society, and to this 
Christian community, to give the alarm, and let me be hunted from both. 
Why have you not done this ? 

Or, if my unworthiness be not your complaint against me, is it my in- 
competence to perform the duties of my office ? 

Much sickness and not a little labor have fallen to my lot in life ; and 
five more than half a century of years have laid their hands upon my 
frame. I say nothing of the load which your hands have cast upon my 



246 



spirit. That I know that I can bear still longer, if it i3 God's will and 
yours that I should bear it. But if what has fallen upon my poor frame 
has so bowed and shaken it that it can no longer sustain the weight of my 
duties, it would seem to me more in accordance with the usage of the 
Boston churches — and, perhaps, with the dictates of humanity, — to have 
brought in a younger man to my aid as a colleague, than thus to have 
thrust me out upon the world to support myself by labors which, upon 
this supposition I am incompetent to perform. Is my fault — is the ground 
of this vote — my incompetence to serve you ? 

Or, if it be not my incompetence for my duties, is it my unfaithfulness 
_ to them ? 

On this point, Gentlemen, I call you to witness. What call of duty 
have I not heard ? What voice of sorrow has come to me that I have 
disregarded ? What known sickness or affliction have I not sought to 
comfort? What family have I forsaken, or forborne to visit, — at least, 
till the coolness of my reception has told me that I was not a welcome 
visitor ? — If, after that, any man complain that I have forsaken him or his 
house, he may find a reason for it in his own sense of self-respect. I thua 
interrogate you, brethren, in the sight of our Final Judge ; and I chal- 
lenge you to answer me, as you ivill answer Him. Did you regard Him 
as your Witness while you were framing these proceedings against me ? 
Have your prayers ever gone up to Him, that He would prosper you in this 
your enterprise ? Even now, dare you bow your knees before him, and 
ask him to bless you in it? The day is coming when you will not regard 
it as you do now. These earthly Records, too, will be read by eyes that 
will see it not as you see it. They will look to your doings for the rea- 
son of your doings. What reason will they find ? 

In the Preamble to this vote, declaring that you no longer wish my ser- 
vices as your Pastor, you allege no charges against me. You express, 
indeed your opinion — an opinion that you can easily establish should any 
one doubt it — that, so long as I remain your pastor, harmony will not be 
restored to the society. — Of old, Ahab said unto Elijah, " Art thou he that 
troubleth Israel ?" — Let your own Records declare who it was that first 
troubled our Israel. 

The same Preamble, too, declares that, for the last four months, many 
of the oldest members of this society have absented themselves from the 
Meeting-house. You make confession for yourselves ; as it is meet that 
you should do. I ask not why you have thus absented yourselves ; but, 
in the words of David, I do ask you, "What have / done ? What is my 
iniquity ? and what is my sin ?" To these questions the document before 
me gives no reply. It is as silent as a sepulchre. 

But though, in the Preamble to these votes you give no answer to these 
questions, perhaps a reply may be wrung from the ballots that were cast 
in adopting them. 

From the document sent me by your clerk, and from an analysis of the 
ballots, furnished me by one of the committee raised to receive, sort and 
count them, — both, officers of your own appointment — it appears that the 
124 ballots— the whole number of 125, deducting the one blank ballot- 
were cast by 91 persons,— proprietors or proxies. Of these 91 persons, 
only 41 sustained the votes, while 50 opposed them ; — showing that, while 
there was a plurality of 12 pews for the votes, there was a plurality of 9 
souls against them. 

Of the 41 persons voting yea, only 31 are now, or for many years have 
been, worshippers in this church : while of the 50 nays, 47 are regular 
worshippers here :— leaving, of the proprietors actually worshipping in 
the church, a plurality of 16 against the votes. 



247 



Of the 10 absentee proprietors voting 1 in the affirmative, 6 are engaged 
in the traffic in spirituous liquors ; and these 6 cast 19 votes against me : 
showing that the foreign force brought, by that particular interest, to bear 
upon my pulpit was 7 votes more than the whole plurality by which these 
measures were carried. 

Of the 41 persons voting in the affirmative, at least 19 are, or have been, 
concerned directly in the traffic in ardent spirits ; while of the 50 voting 
in the negative, I can find but two that have ever been thus concerned ; 
and now there is not one that is. 

Again ; — of the 68 votes cast against me, 38 were cast by these 19 
dealers. 

And, once more : — While I bear it in mind that the proceedings against 
me at your annual meeting in 1838 were the handiwork of a proprietor, a 
large dealer in spirituous liquors, who, for the last six or eight years has 
been neither a worshipper in the church, nor even an inhabitant of the 
city ; — That at your annual meeting in 1839, they were introduced by a 
large distiller, who, for a still longer period, has been an absentee, and a 
proprietor in another church ; and that, at the first adjourned meeting, last 
fall, they were introduced by a proprietor, a large dealer also, who is, or 
at least, till within " the last four months," has been, a worshipper with us : 
— while I bear all this in mind, I learn from the analysis, just mentioned, 
that a young man, — a son of the proprietor last spoken of, himself also 
concerned in the same traffic as his father, never a proprietor in the 
church till r within " the last four months," and even now a worshipper 
with his family in another church, — comes up to the proprietors' special 
meeting in March, 1840, introduces to the meeting the preamble and votes 
now under notice, produces the title deeds of eleven pews, and casts 
eleven ballots, to show that he no longer wishes my services as pastor of 
this society ! 

What language does all this speak to the present and to the future ? 
Is all this continuous pressure of a particular interest altogether acciden- 
tal ? Is this concentration of monetary forces, from within and from with- 
out the church, upon an humble friend and advocate of the Temperance 
Cause, altogether without a voice — considering, especially, the interest by 
which these forces are applied ? To the question " What is the cause of 
action in this case ?" Do your ballots give an answer that your Preamble 
does not? Are you willing to leave the age that shall come when we are 
all in our graves, to draw its own inferences from these facts ? Does the 
testimony of your own ballot-box put your case just where it will be for 
your honor to leave it ? Does your own showing make your case too 
bad ? — I ask you then, gentlemen, to go with me before an Ecclesiastical 
Council, and make it better. 

Your Vote that is first in order, though second in importance, is this. 

" Voted, that the Resolution passed on the 11th November last, where- 
by the Rev. John Pierpont felt himself authorized to resume the pulpit of 
Hollis Street Meeting-house, be, and the same is, hereby rescinded." 

This vote, also, like the one I have just considered, I shall regard and 
treat as a nullity ; and for this reason : 

If, as I have already shown, you cannot, by your own act, without my 
concurrence or consent, dissolve the relation between us, directly, and in 
form ; so neither can you, by your own act, dissolve it indirectly but in 
effect, by so restricting and hedging me up in the discharge of the duties 
of that relation, as to make it impossible, or even uncomfortable for me to 
discharge them faithfully and to your own profit. St. Paul tells us that 
" It is expected of a steward that he be found faithful." But faithfulness 



248 



implies freedom, where the stewardship is of a moral character, and the 
duties are of a moral nature. While the stewardship continues, my obli- 
gations remain ; and your powers are limited by the lines that define 
them. 

By rescinding the Resolution to which this vote refers, you give me to 
understand that the Pulpit of Hollis Street Meeting-house is no longer 
free ; and that I cannot, therefore, enter it again, in accordance with my 
determination to stand in a free pulpit or in none. But I, in turn, would 
give you to understand that, till after some further steps are taken in the 
premises than have yet been taken, — and it is for yourselves, gentlemen, 
to say whether any further shall be taken, and if any, what — I shall con- 
tinue to occupy the pulpit, as I have done for the last twentyone years. 
And this I shall do, not because I have changed my determination to 
stand in a free pulpit or in none ; but because I have changed my views 
of your competency to control, or in the least degree to limit or restrict, the 
freedom of your pulpit, so long as it is in my charge. When your pulpit 
is relieved of its present incumbent, whether by agreement of parties, or 
by process ef law — or by death — you may propose such terms, prescribe 
such restrictions, and interdict before-hand, to his successor, such " exci- 
ting topics," as you may find it comfortable to yourselves, and acceptable 
to him. But, with your present minister, you did not begin in season this 
work of encroachment upon his province ; and now it is quite to late for 
you to begin. His soul is his own ; and, in the pulpit or out of it, he will 
say that it is his own. 

Well, but is not our pulpit our own ? — you may ask ; and may not a 
man do what he will with his own ? 

I answer: — The Pulpit of Hollis Street Church, as a mere physical ob- 
ject, — as so much wood and paint, — is your property. You may lock it 
up, or you may cut it down. You may do what you will with your own, 
— so that you do no injury to what is another's own. You may hang 
around your pulpit silken cords or iron chains, as you please. But while 
you have a man in it, whom you have put there as your minister — to do the 
work for which the pulpit was made, — he is not your property. He is, in- 
deed, your servant ; but he is not your slave. He is a man, not a thing ; 
and it entirely transcends your power to touch the very source of all his ; 
— the freedom of his spirit and of his speech. 

I see now, therefore, that the Resolve of 11th November, 1839, to which 
your vote refers, and which expressly declares the freedom of Hollis 
Street pulpit, was entirely unnecessary — honorable though it was to the 
majority at that time — since the vote which went before it, viz. the vote of 
30th September, and the vote now under consideration,— both of which 
affect to restrain that freedom, are nugatory from the first. Had I, last 
fall, and the fall before, looked as attentively as I have now done, at the 
limitations of your power and of my own rights — not to say duties — I 
should not have retired, as I did, from my pulpit, till I should be called 
back to it by a vote of the Proprietors, of the nature of a Declaration of 
Independence. — No : — as a material mass, the pulpit of your church is es- 
sentially subject to your wishes. As a moral engine it is as essentially 
free. It can come under bondage to no man, while it is a moral engine. 
When it falls into other hands, it may become whatever else, the owners 
and the incumbent may agree among themselves to make it. — I now see 
my error in leaving it as I did. I confess the error that I see. I should 
have been more jealous of encroachments upon my rights; and, for the 
future I hope I shall be. I hope, too, that my brethren in the ministry will 
take warning from my case, and learn from it that the first concession that 



249 



they make, to encroachments upon their rights, will surely and shortly be 
followed by an opportunity for a second. 

This Vote, therefore, I must regard as nugatory ; first, because it is in 
derogation of my rights ; and secondly, because it affects to do what it 
transcends your power to do. 

By your third Vote, Gentlemen, I see that you have appointed a large 
committee that is " fully authorized to attend to all matters and things re- 
lating to the society, and to employ counsel if they think necessary." 

To this Vote I have no objection. It touches no rights and no duties of 
mine. If your Standing Committee, whose office it appears entirely to 
supersede, are content with the measure, I shall not complain of it. But, 
since it contemplates the employment of legal counsel, in the settlement 
of this controversy, I hope that the committee, as well as their constituent 
body, considering the relation of spiritual adviser that I still hold to both, 
will, first, suffer a word of counsel and exhortation from me. It shall be 
good counsel. It shall be given in kindness, and in good faith. 

In my first communication to you, last fall, I suggested two ways of re- 
lieving yourselves of the grievance complained of : — first, by withdrawing 
yourselves from your pews ; and, secondly, by displacing me from my pul- 
pit. The alternative proposed gave some of you offence. Has any one, 
of the offended ones, discovered any other alternative, since ? If I sug- 
gested the only alternative in the case, it seems to me that you should 
have been displeased with the case — though of your own making — and 
not with me, for, showing you the only way of disposing of it. In the ex- 
ercise of your rignt, however, to choose between the branches of the alter- 
native, you choose the latter : that is, you decided to displace me from my 
pulpit That was your object then. It is your object now. — In the same 
letter in which I proposed this alternative, I proposed, also, a distinct 
issue, upon the question, What is the cause of your public action against 
me — I averring, and you, by your committee denying, that the source of 
these waters of strife was to be found in the part that I had taken in rela- 
tion to the Temperance Reform. The issue being thus tendered, and 
taken, in my next communication I stated that the case, so far as the 
pleadings were concerned, was ready for trial, and this I respectfully de- 
manded, before a mutual Ecclesiastical Council ; — the only competent tri- 
bunal ; — the only tribunal recognized by our laws, for the settlement of 
such cases ; — the only tribunal by means of which you could effect your 
object. This you declined doing : — your committee, to whom my com- 
munication was referred for consideration, reporting that, in their opinion, 
there was, between the parties, nothing for such a tribunal to settle ; — and 
by that committee, you appealed to the more popular tribunal of public 
sentiment, through the newspaper press. — You did not thus effect your 
object. You have now appealed to the power of the purse : — and neither 
will you now succeed. There is a Power that spurns your purses. " Will 
He esteem your riches ? No, not gold, nor all the forces of strength." 
The great difficulty in your case, is that you have placed yourselves in a 
false position. By this, your last step, you have lost ground. You are 
farther from your object than you were last fall. I counselled you then to 
take me before a mutual council, pledging myself to abide its result. It 
was the only thing that could help you then ; and now, I fear, not even 
that can help you. But go, by all means, to counsel learned in the law. 
It is, indeed, very possible that his advice will not avail you. But it will 
be something for you to learn from him that, while you hold your present 
position, there is no advice that can. It is quite possible that his services 
will be as little in harmony with your wishes, as mine have been ; for I 
32 



250 



believe that the laws of man, upon this point, agree with those of God ; 
and, very possibly, your legal adviser may tell you that he can no more 
bend the law to your wishes, than can I the gospel. This, however, in 
his case, as in mine, will result, not from any unwillingness, on his part, 
to please the men who pay him for his professional services ; but, from 
the singular infelicity of the case that you lay before him. 

Do not, my brethren, be surprised, if your legal adviser should tell you 
that your minister has already counselled you as a faithful friend ; and if 
he should say " Gentlemen, you have taken wrong ground : you cannot 
stand upon it in a court of law ; and you cannot go forward in your pre- 
sent course without sure defeat, coupled with no little mortification. It 
will not be agreeable to you, I know, but the best counsel that I can give 
you is to take back your last step ; and till you can make out something 
against your minister that you will be willing to carry before an Ecclesi- 
astical Council, sit down peaceably, either in your own church or in some 
other ; and, wherever you sit, believe that the preacher as truly consults 
your interests, in his counsels, as I do in mine." 

And now, my brethren, as this may possibly be the last counsel that, as 
your minister, I may ever have an opportuuity to give you, those of you 
especially, who have been most active in disquieting the sheep of this 
christian fold, by your persecution of its shepherd, — indulge me, I pray 
you, in one word more of counsel. The time is coming when you will 
thank me for it ; thank me the more heartily, the more promptly you fol- 
low it. Desist — I counsel you to desist, from that part of your business 
which has been the cause of all this unhappy controversy ; the cause of 
your troubles, and of my trials and triumph — for I shall be triumphant, at 
last. Desist from the business that, through the poverty of many, has 
made you rich : — that has put you into your palaces by driving them 
through hovels and prisons down into the gates of the grave. Abandon 
the business that is kindling the fires of hatred upon your own hearth- 
stones, and pouring poison into the veins of your children, — yea, and of 
your children's children, and sending the shriek of delirium through their 
chambers: — the business that is now scourging our good land as pesti- 
lence and war have never scourged it ; nay, the business, in prosecuting 
which you are, even now, carrying a curse to all the continents of the 
world, and making our country a stench in the nostrils of the nations. I 
counsel you to stay your hands from this work of destruction, and wash 
them of this great iniquity, as becomes the disciples of Him who came not 
to destroy men's lives, but to save them. As his disciples, I counsel you 
no longer to absent yourselves from your wonted place of worship, and to 
return to your allegiance to your church and to God. Say to your minis- 
ter " Well done, good and faithful servant ! you have faithfully done the 
work that you were ordained to do. You have neither spared nor feared 
us. You have even wounded us ; but, faithful are the wounds of a 
friend. We commend you for your work, and charge you to go on with 
it that we may meet together, and rejoice together, in the presence of 
God." 

This is the course, my christian brethren, which it will be for your peace 
to take ; — and not more for your peace, than for your honor and profit ; for 
thus will you become more rich unto God. The age of " many" of your 
number, to which you allude, in the paper before me, ought to admonish 
you that, though you may take this course now, the day is not distant when 
you may not. 

Gentlemen, in your proceedings against me, you have appealed to that 
in which your strength lies; — your numbers, and your wealth. My 



251 



strength is in neither of these. It is in the righteousness of my cause. 
It is in the protection assured to a righteous cause by the laws of a Chris- 
tian State. It is in the judgments of good men, in regard to my faithful- 
ness as a minister of Christ. It is in the decision that will be pronounced 
upon this case by coming times, and by " the Judge of all the earth." On 
these I rely. To all these I appeal. 

Your Pastor and true friend, 

JOHN PIERPONT. 

Boston, 23d March, 1840. 

The communication was then referred to the Committee of seven 
chosen at the last meeting, it being Voted that three copies of it be fur- 
nished to each Proprietor — and the meeting was adjourned for a fortnight 

On motion of Mr Hay, it was then voted, that the above communica- 
tions be referred to the Committee of Seven, chosen at the last meeting. 

On motion of Mr Loring, it was voted (40 yeas to 11 nays) that the pro- 
ceedings of this and the last meetings be printed, and that three copies be 
furnished to each proprietor at their houses. 

Voted, To adjourn for a fortnight from this evening, at half-past 7 o'clock, to 
hear the Report of their Committee. 

Adjourned. 

A true copy from the Records. 

Attest : A. H. BEAN, Clerk. 

Adjourned Meeting, Monday Evening, April 6th, 1840. 
Deacon Samuel May, Moderator. 

The proceedings of the last Meeting having been read, the Committee 
appointed to take into consideration the last Communication from the Pastor, 
submitted to the meeting, through their Chairman, Joshua Crane, Esq., 
the following 

REPORT. 

The Committee to whom was referred the last communication of the 
Rev. John Pierpont, instead of answering that communication in detail, 
beg leave to offer trie following preamble and votes. 

Whereas, on a review of the Grounds of Complaint against the Rev. 
John Pierpont, and of the causes of dissatisfaction with him, it appears 
that there are the following, among other objections to him as a public 
teacher of the gospel to this Society, viz : 

Because he has habitually and improperly bestowed too much of his 
time and attention upon secular business, pursuits and concerns, which 
ought to have been devoted to the more faithful discharge of his important 
ministerial duties : 

Because his mind has been, and is, uniformly too much engrossed with 
matters which do not properly belong to his pastoral office, and which has 
caused him to neglect his pastoral duties : 

Because he has been, and is, too much engaged in and excited and car- 
ried away by the prevailing topics of dispute, and matters of controversy, 
belonging rather to politics than to religion, with which the public have 
from time to time been vexed, to admit of his faithfully fulfilling his ob- 
ligations and duties as a minister over this Society : 

Because while he is well aware that there is a great difference of opin- 
ion among his parishioners upon these subjects of dispute, he nevertheless 



252 



wilfully, habitually and improperly introduces and zealously endeavors to 
enforce his opinions upon them in his discourses from the pulpit, as well 
as in his other writings : 

Because, by his conduct, writings and discourses he has clearly mani- 
fested that he is wanting in that prudence, moderation, sound judgment, 
and christian charity which are essential to an evangelical teacher : 

Because in his discourses from the pulpit and elsewhere, he has fre- 
quently used opprobrious, unbecoming and improper language, touching, 
or in allusion to a considerable part of his most respectable parishioners, 
and touching, or in allusion to their lawful dealings and business in a 
manner tending at once to show his unfitness for his clerical office, and 
to destroy his influence and usefulness as a religious preacher : 

Because he is in the practice of introducing into his discourses topics 
and language unfit and unsuitable to be discussed or uttered from the 
sacred desk: 

Because in his writings, discourses and conduct he habitually manifests 
too much of the spirit, bias, and character of a partisan, and is too easily 
led away with every wind of doctrine to be a fit and profitable teacher of 
the gospel : 

Because in his conduct, discourses and writings, he has disclosed a spir- 
it, disposition and character unbecoming a Christian Minister, and incon- 
sistent with that character which he ought to sustain as a pastor over this 
Society : 

Because his conduct in his secular affairs and dealings has not always 
appeared to be exemplary, above just suspicion and reproach, and such 
as befits the sacred office of a minister of the gospel : 

Because by his indiscreet and improper conduct he has disturbed the 
peace and harmony which used to exist, and which still ought to exist in 
this Society ; has lost the respect and confidence of, and rendered himself 
unacceptable as a religious teacher to a great portion of the members 
thereof ; and has lost his influence, and can no longer be useful as such 
teacher over this Society : 

It is therefore, in view of the premises, and of the various grounds of 
complaint and dissatisfaction existing against him, 

Voted, That the said John Pierpont is, in our opinion, unfit to fill the of- 
fice of Pastor over this Society ; that by his conduct and neglect he has 
forfeited the same ; that this Society is no longer bound to acknowledge, 
employ, support, or pay him, as such pastor ; and that it is not expedient, 
and will not contribute to the welfare of this Society so to do : 

It is further voted, that unless the said John Pierpont shall immediately 
upon notice of these votes of this Society, consent to a dismissal from 
said office forthwith, and abandon all claims thereto, an Ecclesiastical 
Council shall be called to inquire into the grounds of complaint against and 
dissatisfaction with the said Pierpont, and consider and determine whether 
the pastoral relation between the said Pierpont and this Society ought to exist 
any longer. 

And it is further voted, that Joshua Crane, John D. Williams, Daniel 
Weld, Richards Child, William W. Clapp, Warren White and Samuel 
May, together with the Standing Committee and Deacon Henry Bass, be 
a committee to wait upon the said Pierpont with a copy of these votes and 
request him to consent to an immediate dismission from his office of Pastor, 
or to join in the appointment of a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council for the 
purpose aforesaid, to proceed according to the usage in such cases ; and that 
the said committee be empowered to draw up articles of complaint against 



253 



Committee. 



the said Pierpont in due form, and serve him with a copy thereof in order 
that ihey may be laid before the said Council when duly convened. 
Signed, 

JOSHUA CRANE, 
DANIEL WELD, 
JOHN D. WILLIAMS, 
RICHARDS CHILD, 
WILLIAM W. CLAPP, 
WARREN WHITE, J 
Boston, April 6, 1840. 

After the foregoing Report had been read to the meeting, amotion was 
made that the same be accepted. 

Mr Francis Jackson objected to the charges made in the Report, and 
approved of the votes so far as related to the calling of a Council. He 
stated that the friends of Mr Pierpont had always been in favor of calling 
a Council, believing it to be the only legal way in which the present diffi- 
culties could be settled, and that they would unite in its appointment, pro- 
vided that the Report could be divided, but that the friends of Mr Pier- 
pont could not vote for the acceptance of the Report, thereby acknow- 
ledging the charges therein contained to be true ; and he hoped that a 
division of the Report would be made, and then it would be a unanimous 
vote to call such a Council as recommended therein. 

Mr J. J. May, moved that the Report bo divided, so that the question be 
taken upon the charges and the call for Council, separately. 

After considerable discussion, Mr Warren White moved for the previ- 
ous question. 

Messrs. Henry Smith, Warren White, and Francis Jackson, were ap- 
pointed a Committee to receive, sort and count the ballots — who subse- 
quently reported, that the whole number of ballots given in upon the Re- 
port and Votes before the meeting, to be 121. Yeas 67. — Nays 54. 

It was also 

Voted, That the blank in the Report be filled by inserting the names of the 
" Committee of Seven." 

On motion of Mr Crane, it was 

Voted, That Deacon Henry Bass, and the Standing Committee, be added to 
that Committee. 

Voted, That the Clerk forward to the Rev. John Pierpont a copy of the 
proceedings of this meeting. 

The meeting was then dissolved. 
A true copy from the Records. 

Attest: AARON H. BEAN, Clerk. 
ANNUAL MEETING. 

September 7, 1840. 
The Committee appointed for the purpose offered the following Report . 

Boston, September 7th, 1840. 
The Committee appointed for the purpose beg leave to Report, that they 
have employed and consulted Counsel, and prepared charges against Rev. Mr 
Pierpont, conformably to the Vote passed on the 6th April last; that they have 
held a correspondence with him which has not yet terminated ; and that they 
are not now ready, but ask for further time to make a final Report. 

JOSHUA CRANE, 
For the Committee. 



254 



Voted, To accept the Report of the Committee, and to allow them further 
time to report in full, and also that the proceedings of the meeting at which the 
Committee were appointed and all subsequent proceedings of the Proprietors, 
are approved and confirmed. 

The foregoing vote having been taken by written ballot, resulted as 
follows : — 

Whole number of Votes, 74.— Yeas 70— Nays 3— Blank 1. 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
A true copy from the Records. 

Attest: GEORGE S. JACKSON, Clerk. 

SPECIAL MEETING. 

Monday Evening, December 7, 1840. 
The meeting was organized by the choice of Warren White, Esq. 
as Moderator. 

Mr Crane, Chairman of the Committee, offered the following Report : 
[Here follows the Report heretofore given. See page 42 and 43 of 
Correspondence ] 
The following votes were offered by Mr Redman : — 

Voted, To accept the Report of the Committee, and that all their doings are 
approved and confirmed by the Society. 

Voted, That Messrs Joshua Crane, John D. Williams, Daniel Weld, William 
W. Clapp, Timothy Tileston, Ruel Baker, and Warren White be a Commit- 
tee to take all necessary and proper measures to call an ex-parte Council to 
consider and advise upon the matters in difference between the Society and its 
Pastor, and that said Committee be authorized to employ Counsel and to repre- 
sent the Society in all things before the Council when convened. 

A motion was made by Mr Boyd to amend the votes, by striking out all 
after the word Committee in the first line. 
On motion of Mr Crane, it was 

Voted, That the question upon the amendment of the votes be taken by 
written ballots. 

Messrs Moses Everett, James Boyd, and Henry Atkins, were appointed 
a Committee to receive, sort and count the votes : — 

Whole number, - - 113 

Yeas, 47 

Nays, - 66 

On the passage of the votes offered by Mr Redman, 

Whole number, - -- -- --65 

Yeas, - - - - 65 

Nays, --------- 00 

The meeting was then dissolved. 

A true copy from the Records. 

Attest: GEORGE S. JACKSON, Clerk. 

[The testimony on both sides here closed, and the Council ad- 
journed till 4 o'clock, P. M., to hear Mr Washburn's argument. 

The argument of Mr Washburn for the Pastor is published from 
his own report, written out by himself at the request of the friends 
of Mr Pierpont, and has not been revised by the reporter. 

The argument of Mr Rand is given from the notes of Mr Hallett, 
as written out by him.] 



DEFENCE. 



Mr Moderator and Gentlemen of the Council : 

I cannot but congratulate you that this 
protracted examination is drawing to a close. Nothing now re- 
mains but to sum up the evidence upon the one side and the other^ 
before the cause will be submitted to you for your final determi- 
nation. 

But in doing this in behalf of my friend, the respondent, I feel, 
for many reasons, no ordinary degree of embarrassment. I stand 
in the place of another who addressed you in an earlier stage of 
these proceedings, and whose distinguished ability you yourselves 
have witnessed. Not only so, but I stand opposed to two gentle- 
men whose learning and power have justly raised them to the em- 
inent rank they sustain at one of the first bars in the country. 

I stand, too, for the first time before such a tribunal as I am now 
called to address, and am alike inexperienced in what is due to the 
body before which I appear, or the cause which has been intrusted 
to me. 

I see before me a tribunal venerable by historical association, 
which has survived the separation of civil and Ecclesiastical pow- 
er which once prevailed here, not so much by the aid of the law, 
as by the force of its own moral strength ; and I cannot but reflect 
how much the future maintenance of our churches and religious 
institutions depends upon the integrity and the independence of 
such tribunals as has here convened. 

1 cannot overlook the character of the parties before you, nor the 
nature of the charges which you have been called upon to investi- 
gate. On the one side are men of wealth and powerful alliance, 
moving in an elevated rank in life, and commanding a wide circle 
of influence around them. On the other, a clergyman long and 
widely known at home and abroad for his literary and religious 
character. And not only he, but in his fate are involved the wish- 
es, and hopes, and interests of a large body of worshippers, who 
look to him as their spiritual guide and teacher. 

The charges, moreover, upon which you are to pass, involve the 



256 



moral and religious character of a minister of the gospel, who for ' 
more than twenty years has broken at this altar the Bread of Life, 
and who is by your decision to be restored to his flock, or cut off 
with censure and disgrace. 

If, then, in view of all these, I enter upon the duty before me 
with misgiving and distrust, you will not ascribe it to any appre- 
hension I may have of the justice of my cause, the integrity or 
purity of the tribunal, or the final issue to which this Council and ~~ 
the world may come upon the subject, but to the fear I feel that I 
may not be able to present this cause in all its true lights and bear- 
ings, or may fail to do justice to one, who in selecting me as his ad- 
vocate, has suffered his feelings as a friend to outweigh his judg- ~- 
ment as a party. 

Before entering upon the examination of the evidence, I wish to 
express the sense of acknowledgment I feel in behalf of my friend, 
for the manner in which, though called as an ex-parte Council ori- 
ginally, you have generously proffered your services in adjusting 
the difficulties existing between these parties, and for the patience, 
faithfulness, candor and impartiality with which you have perform- 
ed the irksome and unwelcome duties which have thus devolved 
upon you. 

Attempts have been made by gathering up and repeating here 
expressions of the respondent in regard to the restraints under 
which his brethren were placed in their pulpits, to excite prejudi- 
ces in the minds of the Council — for I cannot see why else the 
evidence was introduced. But I have no fear that any unguarded 
expression of that kind, uttered in the ardor of discussion, though 
carefully treasured up and now brought forward by witnesses, will 
influence the judgment of a single member of this Board ; for with 
men of honorable minds, personal feelings will never be suffered 
to come in conflict with their duty or their self-respect. 

I have never for a moment suffered myself to doubt that, if from 
any cause, feelings other than perfect kindness ever existed in the 
minds of any of the Council towards either party, they would be 
laid aside in judging of the merits of this case, and that the great 
purposes of truth and justice would alone be regarded. 

In that confidence I have gone on, and when the public come to 
review, as certainly they will, the judgment of this body, I cannot 
doubt that their result will show that this confidence has not been 
misplaced. 

In pursuing the examination before you, I propose to inquire, 1st, 
What powers this Council, as an investigating tribunal, possess, and 
of what charges they may take cognizance ; 2d, What the charges 
are to which the respondent is called to answer, and how far, if at 
all, these have been sustained by evidence ; and 3d, What the duty 
of the Council is, in view of the whole case before them. 

By referring to the various decisions of our Courts, in which the 
powers and duties of Ecclesiastical Councils have been under con- 



257 



sideration, it will be found that the matters cognizable by such 
bodies, when properly constituted, are of two classes, viz : such as 
work a forfeiture of office by a minister, and such as authorize a 
Council to interpose between the parties by the way of advice. 

Indeed, no Council can dissolve the connexion between a people 
and their Pastor. The effect of their result is this : If they find 
him guilty of such offences as would justify such a dissolution, 
their finding will be taken as true, and the civil courts will give 
effect to it by releasing the parish from any further obligation to 
support such minister. To liken these proceedings to those in 
civil courts, the " result" of a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council is to 
be regarded like the verdict of a jury, upon which the court enter 
up a judgment, which is binding upon the parties. 

In the first class of these offences, viz : such as work a forfeiture 
of the ministerial relation, are embraced, an essential change of 
doctrine, a wilful neglect of duty, and immoral or criminal conduct, 
such as habitual intemperance, lying, unchaste and immodest be- 
havior. In the second of these classes, are included imprudence, 
folly, censoriousness, a spirit of persecution, and the like. These, 
though enumerated by the court, are rather, however, put by the 
way of illustration, than as limiting and defining the precise offen- 
ces which a Council may consider. 

It has been much insisted upon by the complainants, during this 
trial, that regard is only to be had to the rights of the corporation, 
made up of the proprietors of pews, and that none other than those 
who hold the title-deeds to the seats which you now occupy, have 
a right to be considered when the Council come to make up their 
result. 

If such a narrow, technical rule is to be applied for a moment, it 
must be only in regard to the first class of offences above enumer- 
ated, for ^ as the pew-owners lay their claims upon the ground that 
they only are responsible to pay the salary of the clergyman, they 
can have little to do with what does not go to release them from this 
liability. Whereas, the second class of offences, as well as the 
first, affect the feelings and rights of every worshipper here, wheth- 
er he owns the pew that he occupies, or holds it as the tenant of 
another. 

Both classes of offences have been charged against the respond- 
ent, and consequently the Council are bound, if they regard the 
general rules of law as their guide, to consider the bearing which 
their result must have upon the great body of the worshippers here, 
as well as upon those who can produce parchment evidence of 
their interest in the question. 

The parties, however, to this controversy, did not choose to leave 
to mere legal implication, of what this Council should take cogni- 
zance. They have confined themselves and the Council to the 
" Grounds of Complaint" of the 27th of July, 1840, " as reasons 
for dissolving" the connexion of Mr Pierpont with his parish. This 
33 



258 



agreement, it will be remembered, was framed after much discus- 
sion, and many impediments in the way of organizing a Council 
had been removed by its adoption. And by it, both parties must 
have understood, the Council are to be governed. 

The question, therefore, as I understand it, is not whether you 
shall subject Mr Pierpontto censure or advice, still suffering him to 
retain his relation as Pastor, but whether these " grounds" and the 
proofs offered to sustain them, furnish sufficient f reasons for dis- 
solving his connexion with the parish." 

These I regard the legal rights of my friend, so far as this inves- 
tigation extends. But I should regret to have it thought that I wish- 
ed to place the defence upon mere technical ground ; and there- 
fore, as the evidence has covered much of the respondent's life, I 
shall endeavor to go into the subject in its broadest extent, and to 
satisfy the Council and the public that, in no sense, has the respond- 
ent been obnoxious to the charges that have been fabricated against 
him. 

The object of one party here is to release themselves from a con- 
tract, into which they entered with the other party more than 
twenty years since ; a contract, which, as it is unlimited in its 
terms, has been held by our courts to be binding upon the parish 
until the minister shall have done something whereby he has for- 
feited the right to enforce it. And one obvious reason for such a 
construction is, that a minister may be left reasonably free to ut- 
ter his sentiments, without fear that by so doing he shall be sacri- 
ficed to the sudden caprice of angry and excited parishioners. 

Here, then, the question arises, have the complainants shown 
enough to justify, the dissolution of their contract with Mr Pierpont, 
against his consent ? 

In regard to the first subdivision of the first class of offences 
above enumerated, — his doctrines and belief, — nothing has been 
charged or proved against him ; but in relation to immoral conduct 
and neglect of duty, they are made the subjects of charge, and an 
attempt has been made to sustain these charges by proofs. 

The charges against the respondent, though spread upon the re- 
cord under nine different heads, may be considered as of three dis- 
tinct classes, and in that order I propose to consider them. 

First, Those affecting his moral integrity, purity, and honesty. 

Second, Those relating to the performance of his ministerial 
duties ; and 

Third, Those affecting his temper and manners, and discretion 
as a minister, comprising his general suitableness for the office. 

In pursuing this general order, I desire also to have another di- 
vision regarded, in your inquiries, and that is, in respect to time, — 
prior and subsequent to 1838. That will be found to be an essen- 
tial epoch in regard to the events which you are to consider, and 
out of it grows much that will serve to explain the whole case be- 
fore you. 



259 



One thing I may remark in this early stage of your inquiries, 
that during the difficulties and agitations in the parish in 1838, the 
idea of charging Mr Pierpont with a want of moral integrity was 
never broached. The members of the committee, who in that year 
spent three whole evenings in gathering up and discussing with Mr 
Pierpont the cause of offence against him, did not then and do not 
now charge him with a want of purity or moral integrity. It is 
since then that the Proprietors have dragged the current of his 
whole life as with a net, and have spread its entire contents before 
the Council. Every one, though he be a stranger to these difficul- 
ties, has been courted and invited to bring and cast into the caul- 
dron which they have been seething, his own share of bitter herbs, 
with which to give malignity to the compound. And Dr Bemis 
%nd Mr Fowle have been ready to obey this call ; but with what 
success the sequel may determine. 

I do not propose to recapitulate the mass of evidence which has 
been submitted to you. The most I can do will be to refer to it 
generally, as it bears upon the different charges, to which I will 
now proceed to call your attention. 

The first of these is the charge of Indelicacy, of which it is al- 
ledged the respondent has been guilty, in his pulpit and elsewhere, 
to the mortification and disgust of his female hearers. 

I notice this charge first, because, if it is true, you need go no 
further ; the respondent ought not only to be expelled from his pul- 
pit, but to be scouted from all decent society. If there is any one 
thing that renders a clergyman more unfit for the sacred office 
than another, it is the want of moral purity. There is something 
so revolting in the very idea, that the man who comes into our 
families in the interesting and almost sacred relation of pastor — 
in seasons of joy and of sorrow ; in the sick chamber and the most 
private intimacy of unsuspecting confidence — can be impure in 
thought and indelicate in language, that no man can tolerate it for 
a moment. 

The charge in this case is a grave one. It has been seriously 
made, but how has it been sustained ? 

It rests for its support, principally, upon the testimony of Mr 
Crane. 

From the testimony of this and other witnesses, it appears, that, 
many years ago, Mr Pierpont, in a speech that he made at a public 
meeting in Fanueil Hall used one word in describing a particular 
class of vices, which, to the sensitive ear of Mr Crane, sounded in- 
delicate. And yet that word, which need not be repeated here, is 
often found in the Bible, and is uttered by every preacher of the 
gospel, when he reads that book from the sacred desk. 

There were, besides this, two sermons testified of by the same 
witness ; and the one to which Mr Hay objected more than the 
other, was that in which Mr Pierpont, speaking of the state of the 



260 



Catholic Church in Europe, alluded to the celibacy of the Catho- 
lic clergy, in the following language : " They are the best fed and 
best clothed of any class, and have passions like other men," 

Here are the offensive words, and I have ventured, even at the 
charge of indelicacy myself, to repeat them, though I see around 
me an audience, which I know embraces as refined and delicate 
minds as can be found in this or any other city ; and I will venture 
to ask, wherein consists the indelicacy charged ? Was this an im- 
proper subject to allude to ? If so, what is to become of the 
Dudleian Lectures in the venerable halls of Harvard, as well as 
every day's discussion, in literary and religious circles, of the 
merits of the Catholic Church and its institutions ? 

In regard to the other sermon, it appears that he alluded, in the 
course of it, to his having been upon the same spot where Paul had 
stood in Corinth, and as he contemplated the ruins of that proud 
city, he naturally reverted to its former splendor, and the causes 
of its decline and ruin. He ascribed it to its luxury and its vices, 
and in describing the extent to which these were carried in the 
days of its prosperity, he cited from a commentator on the Epistle 
to the Corinthians, or as Mr Hay says, stated, " it is narrated," that 
the favors of a single celebrated courtesan were rewarded by an 
immense sum in gold. 

This may have been an unfortunate illustration. But every 
scholar knows that the extent to which vice was carried in Corinth 
made her infamous even in a corrupt age. And is it wonderful, 
that as the picture of that city rose in his mind, and he stood in 
imagination among its crumbled monuments of art, its broken col- 
umns and ruined temples, he should have referred back to the vice 
and profligacy that had wrought out this destruction ? u To the 
pure every thing is pure," and in the unconscious purity of his own 
mind, he never dreamed that a simple historical illustration like 
that, could raise the idea of indelicacy in the prurient imagination 
of any one. 

Has he been impure, or has his preaching or intercourse with his 
people lowered the standard of moral purity in his society ? The 
witnesses who have been called by the complainants themselves, 
have answered this question. Mr Hay, Mr Smith, and Deacon 
Bass, one and all, deny it unqualifiedly, and do justice to the re- 
spondent in this respect. 

And how has it been regarded by his people ? No man ever 
whispered a complaint on the subject to Mr Pierpont. At the ear- 
lier meetings of committees, when every charge was brought for- 
ward that was then known, not an allusion to this was made. The 
offence, if it ever took place, must have happened soon or imme- 
diately after his return from Europe, in 1836 ; and yet the first 
time that it is charged, is in April, 1840. True delicacy is some- 
thing that shrinks, instinctively, at what is coarse, or vulgar, or in- 



261 



decent. It does not require three years' brooding over an expres- 
sion, in order to determine whether it has been offended by it 
or not. 

There is yet another test by which to determine the truth of this 
charge. This Council need not be told, that there is in Hollis 
Street Society, as much female delicacy, purity, and sensibility, as 
in any that can be named ; and in this, let it be understood, I mean 
to embrace the wives and daughters of the opponents of Mr Pier- 
pont. Whatever may be thought of the assumed delicacy of some 
of the witnesses, there has not been a word to implicate the entire 
delicacy and purity of those with whom they are connected. And 
yet what female ever left this society on account of Mr Pier- 
pont's preaching ? Mr Everett was desirous of leaving, while 
his wife chose to remain. The wife of Mr Crane continued 
to attend here, even against his wishes, after he had ceased to be 
willing himself to listen to the respondent ; and though there are 
many female proprietors of pews here, there is not one of them who 
is now opposed to him in this controversy. Can the Proprietors 
have seen in what situation they place themselves, by bringing for- 
ward this charge ? Are they willing, in order to carry out their 
feelings of hostility against Mr Pierpont, to try to bring reproach 
on their own wives and daughters ? 

Fortunately for them, they have failed ; but the spirit which 
prompted a charge so cruel and so pitiful, ought to meet with the 
rebuke of every pure-minded and honest man. 

But there is one other part of this charge which ought not to be 
entirely passed over, especially since the Proprietors have attempt- 
ed to support it by evidence, and that is, his allusion " to certain 
supposed phrenological organs, in one or more lectures," &c. 

This charge, too, is of a modern date, although the offence must 
have occurred some years since. It has been testified, that Mr 
Pierpont, pursuant to a public notice, gave a lecture on phrenology 
in Quincy, and that, in alluding to the organs which have their 
locality in the back part of the head and neck, remarked that " they 
all knew the difference there was between the shape of the necks 1 ' 
of two animals which he named, and that " that was all he need to 
say on the subject." 

Now here, he was delivering a scientific lecture, and spoke of a 
scientific fact ; and could he have done so in less objectionable 
terms ? If one were to attend a lecture on anatomy, would he 
charge the lecturer with violating the rules of decency, for merely 
speaking of the human body ? 

And so far from being, like the Proprietors of Hollis Street 
Church, shocked at this violation of propriety, the very people who 
heard that lecture, have repeatedly employed Mr Pierpont to lec- 
ture since, before their Lyceum, where they with their neighbors 
and families unreservedly mingle together. 



262 



Such is the evidence on which this charge of indelicacy rests ; 
and I should feel that I was wasting your time if I dwelt any long- 
er on so groundless, although so malignant an imputation against 
the respondent. 

The next charge to which I wish to call your attention, is that 
affecting the character of the respondent for Veracity. 

The Proprietors have set forth as specifications under this gen- 
eral charge, that he has " denied expressions and remarks made by 
him in his sermons, and upon other occasions ;" but not only have 
they failed to prove this — they have not even, that I can recall, 
offered any evidence in regard to it. 

They have, however, under the general license given them by 
the Council to offer proofs to sustain their general charges, under- 
taken to show, from the correspondence between Mr Pierpont and 
themselves, which has been published by his permission and ap- 
probation, that he has made a false statement in relation to his wil- 
lingness and offer to refer the difficulties between them to a Mu- 
tual Council, and also in stating that they rejected this offer. 

Before proceeding to examine the evidence on this point, I may 
be indulged in the remark, that it would be somewhat singular, if, 
while his enemies were leaving no stone unturned to find matter of 
accusation against him, he not only should have put into their 
hands a statement which was false, but that he should have pub- 
lished the same, and with it, the very documents by which its false- 
hood could at once be established. And the presumption would 
naturally arise in the mind of any candid man, that there must be 
some error, to say the least, in the construction which the papers 
ought to receive, if such is the apparent meaning of the language 
there used. 

Now the facts in regard to this matter, as they appear from the 
printed documents, in connexion with Mr Boyd's testimony, are 
these. In one of Mr Pierpont's letters, he states that his zeal in the 
Temperance cause was " the head and front of his offending." 
The Proprietors by their vote denied this ; and on the 7th of Octo- 
ber, 1839, Mr Pierpont in a letter to them states that that is the true 
issue between them, and proposes to refer the trial of that issue to 
a Mutual Council. At the same time that he wrote this letter, he 
wrote and put into Mr Boyd's hands the form of certain votes to be 
presented, at the same time with the letter, to the Proprietors, for 
them to act upon, embracing, among other propositions, a Mutual 
Council to decide, " whether by reason of any thing that he has 
done or left undone, in relation to that cause (Temperance) or any- 
other cause, the connexion between him and his society ought to be 
dissolved. And if for any cause whatever that connexion ought to 
be dissolved, what are the terms and conditions upon which a dis- 
solution shall take place." 

This was referred to a Committee of the Proprietors, who re- 
ported against the proposition of " choosing a Council," " there 



263 



being, in our opinion, nothing for such a tribunal to settle." This 
took place on the 14th of October ; and without any final action 
upon either proposition, the meeting was adjourned. In the mean 
time, a minority of the Committee, who were friendly to Mr Pier- 
pont, addressed to him a communication, in which, among other 
things, they say : " Had the society consented to adopt your sug- 
gestion, that of submitting all the matters of grievance to a Mu- 
tual Council, you could then have had an opportunity of meeting 
those or any other charges in a customary manner ; but as the 
majority of the Committee advise against any Council, it is to be 
supposed their advice will prevail." And in the result, the propo- 
sal was never accepted. Now I understand the matter charged 
against Mr Pierpont as false, is in his communication to the mi- 
nority of the Committee, of October 22, 1839, (page 44 of the 
printed documents,) and in his remonstrance against the proceed- 
ing of an ex-parte Council, (page 4,) and is as follows : " In my 
first letter in reply to your doings in relation to me, which letter is 
of date September 16, I tendered you an issue as to the main- 
spring or moving cause of your annual proceedings against me. In 
reply to that letter, viz : in the preamble to your votes at your meet- 
ing, September 30, you distinctly take that issue. In my second 
letter, dated October 7, I demand a Mutual Council to try that 
issue and to settle all matters in controversy between us. Append- 
ed to that letter, and offered for your consideration immediately 
after it, by Mr James Boyd, at my request, were the preamble and 
votes, of which he gives the copy." 

In the latter of these documents, he says : " A year ago last 
October, at their meeting on the 7th of that month, I tendered to the 
Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House, a Mutual Council, 
\ whose decision should be conclusive, final, and forever binding 
upon both parties,' among other matters, upon these two points, 
namely," and then reciting the two votes offered by Mr Boyd, 
already stated above, and adds " this proposal was rejected." The 
falsehood is now understood to consist, according to the Proprietors' 
construction, in saying that in his letter by Mr Boyd, he demand- 
ed a Mutual Council " to settle all matters in controversy ;" in say- 
ing that the Vt preamble and votes" were " appended to that letter ;" 
and in saying that he tendered a proposal for a Mutual Council, in 
the form embraced in the votes offered by Mr Boyd, and that " this 
proposal was rejected." 

Who can read this correspondence without feeling that every 
word therein contained is in substance and spirit true ? It is not 
pretended that the paper on which the votes were written was ac- 
tually united with the letter by a needle and thread, nor that the 
whole of the proposition was in the letter. But both papers were 
made at one and the same time, they related to one and the same 
matter, and were to be acted upon at one and the same meeting ; 
they were handed to Mr Boyd at the same time, and offered to the 



264 



Proprietors together. What but the most downright hypercriticism 
could torture the statement of this transaction, as given by Mr Pier- 
pont, into a misrepresentation ? It was never intended to be any 
thing riiore than a general summary of the transactions between 
them, and as such, it is manifestly a true one. But it is said, 
that he affirms that the " proposal was rejected," when in fact no 
such vote was ever passed. In technical nicety this may be so ; 
but in regard to a proposition like this, to common minds, the fact 
of the Proprietors not having accepted would justify the assertion, 
that it had been rejected. Such was the construction put by Mr 
Pierpont on these several papers and transactions ; and he is wil- 
ling to appeal to the common sense of candid minds, if for this he 
can be chargeable with a want of truth. 

It has been pretended that Mr Pierpont has been guilty of dis- 
ingenuousness, or want of truth, in regard to the reading of notices 
from his pulpit, because, after having said he would read none un- 
til they had been submitted to the standing Committee, he violated 
his engagement. The facts, as they have come out in evidence, 
are these. His pulpit had become a sort of advertising post, and 
he wished to remedy this evil. On one occasion he declined read- 
ing a paper that had been offered to him, and it was suspected and 
understood to be a Colonization notice, though no one saw it, nor 
has any person complained that it was not read. He at the same 
time stated that all such notices would thereafter be submitted to 
the Committee for approbation. About six months after this, a 
notice for an Abolition meeting was handed to him, and he gave it 
to the sexton to show to the Committee. Two only were present. 
On presenting it to Mr Everett, he declined deciding upon it, say- 
ing that " he might do as he pleased but Mr Parker objected to 
its being read. The sexton returned with the paper to Mr Pier- 
pont ; but which of these messages was communicated to him can- 
not be shown. Mr Pierpont thereupon proceeded to read the no- 
tice. But when the next notice for a similar meeting was submit- 
ted to the Committee, they decided against its being read, and in 
this he acquiesced. After this, another notice was refused by them, 
which led to a discussion between the Committee and the individ- 
ual, Mr Jackson, who had requested it to be read ; and from that 
time the Committee gave the Pastor to understand that they should 
act no more upon the subject. 

From these facts, which is the fairest to infer, — that in reading 
the notice which he did, he acted from the report of the sexton 
from Mr Everett, that " he might do as he pleased," or from Mr 
Parker, that it should not be read ? If he had made up his mind 
to read it notwithstanding the objections of the Committee, would 
he have submitted it at all ? or if he disregarded their wishes to 
this extent, would he have yielded, when to the next application 
they returned a negative answer ? 



265 



Did he in fact ever read one notice that he did not submit to the 
Committee ? or did he ever read one notice that he did not suppose 
they had assented to ? 

Must not a cause be a desperate one which requires the resort to 
a matter like this to find its support ? 

In tracing along the line of these charges, the next in order, un- 
der the allegation of a want of " scrupulous regard for truth," is, 
" his having denied the writing of a certain Theatrical Prologue, 
written by him.'" 

Whoever was the author of that prologue, it should be born in 
mind, that it was written many years since, at the opening of the 
Tremont Theatre, when public sentiment in regard to such amuse- 
ments was different from what it is now. The time was, that cler- 
gymen themselves did not feel reproach for even attending theatri- 
cal performances. But the charge is not for writing but for deny* 
ing the authorship after having written it. 

The inconsistency of this charge with the others that are brought 
against Mr Pierpont, must be apparent : while in one part of these 
criminations he is represented as too bold, too independent of the 
world's opinion, disregarding alike the wishes of his friends and the 
laws of prudence, in thinking and uttering his thoughts, in this he 
is charged with skulking from the light, and cowardly denying his 
own act ! 

There are, of course, two questions to be determined under this 
charge : 1st, Did he write the prologue ? for if he did not, he had 
a right to deny it ; and 2nd, Did he deny it ? for if he did not, it is 
of no consequence whether he wrote it or not. 

In regard to the first question, you have only to imagine the same 
confidence to have existed between Mr Pierpont and the real au- 
thor, that there was between him and Mr Buckingham, in order to 
reach an explanation of every thing he did. He was under no ob- 
ligation to disclose whether he was or was not the author. I do 
not mean to claim the license for which Dr Johnson and Dr Paley 
have been quoted, that an author may deny the truth in relation to 
the authorship of a production, if he wishes this to be concealed ; 
there is no occasion to raise such a question of casuistry in this 
case. What is the evidence that he was the author, or that he de- 
nied it ? Mr Sprague testified that he said to him soon after the 
prize had been awarded, " it is said you are the author ;" to which 
Mr P. replied, " I have not written two lines of heroic verse these 
two years." Now, unless this was false, the charge wholly fails. 
And Mr Sprague says that he " considered that, as an author, he 
was disposed to evade the inquiry." And certainly he might pro- 
perly do this, if he did not thereby state what was not true. 

But it is said he ought to have disclosed whether he was the 
author or not, because imputations had been cast by others upon 
the Committee for having awarded the prize as they did. A mere 
denial of the authorship could not have relieved the Committee ; 
34 



266 



and besides, if he wished or was bound to keep this a secret, how 
could his right to do so be taken away by the unjustifiable acts or 
declarations of strangers towards the Committee ? 

It is certainly somewhat remarkable that an occurrence of some 
fifteen years ago, between strangers to the present controversy, 
should be revived by the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting 
House, to aid them in prosecuting their own recent personal griefs. 
I know not who was the author of that prologue, but the evidence 
in the case raises the most satisfactory probability that it was not 
the respondent. 

It is manifest that whoever wrote it, wished to keep its author- 
ship concealed, and of course would, so far as his own acts went, 
do nothing from which this could be ascertained. This will apply 
as well to Mr Pierpont, if he had been the author, as to any other 
person. And yet we find him going to Mr Buckingham before the 
prologue had been offered, stating to him that such an one might 
be offered, and asking him if he might be trusted with it as a con- 
fidential friend ; and accordingly, soon after that a letter and the 
prologue were sent, both in Mr Pierpont's own hand writing, which 
was familiar to the Committee, to whom it was to be submitted, 
and one of whom had for years been an inmate in his family. The 
prologue gained the prize, and the money was paid over through 
Mr Buckingham's hands to Mr Pierpont, as the one to whom it was 
understood by him it should be paid, if it should prove successful. 

The hand writing of the production satisfied Mr Bailey that Mr 
Pierpont was the author, and he so expressed the opinion to Mr 
Sprague. And yet, is it to be conceived that if Mr Pierpont was the 
author, and chose to keep the fact concealed, he would have pre- 
sented the paper with every thing but his own name upon it to 
mark it as his own ? 

He must have done this to aid a friend, and having his friend's 
secret to keep, he had too much honor to disclose it. 

One thing is true, and I repeat it here before the very altar 
where Mr Pierpont has so long ministered, whoever was the author 
of that production, every word that Mr Pierpont has ever uttered 
in relation to its authorship, was sacredly true in spirit and in 
letter. And here I will leave the charge. 

I will now ask you to turn to the matter of the Steel Hone. 
The evidence in regard to this seems to have been designed to em- 
brace two specifications ; one that he had been guilty of a breach 
of confidence towards Dr Bemis, in disclosing the existence of such 
an invention, and the other, that he " wilfully permitted himself to 
be regarded as the inventor." 

The whole charge rests upon two witnesses — Mr Babbit and Dr. 
Bemis, inasmuch as the Proprietors have not seen fit to call Mr 
Sproat, to whom Mr Pierpont lent his hone in 1829 or 1830, and by 
whom, without Mr Pierpont's knowledge, it was shown to Mr Bab- 
bit. Mr Babbit merely stated that he first saw the instrument in 



267 



Mr Sproat's hands, in Taunton, in 1829 or 1880, that he made four- 
teen of them, without the knowledge of Mr P., for his neighbors, 
that in 1831 Mr P. called with a friend at his shop in Taunton, saw 
one of his hones, and asked him to make him one, which he did, 
and was paid for so doing by Mr P., that after that time Mr P. 
having discovered a better kind of paste to use upon the hone, 
communicated it to Mr Babbit, who in 1832 made some of the hones, 
with the newly-invented paste, and placed them in Mr Ashton's 
store for sale, and that Mr Pierpont had never the slightest pecu- 
niary interest or benefit whatever in the manufacture or sale of the 
hones. 

So far, therefore, as a breach of confidence was concerned, the 
case rests entirely on Dr Bemis ; and, unfortunately for the re- 
spondent, that witness has fixed the times when these confidential 
communications are said to have been had, at periods when no 
other person was present, and much of the pretended confidence is 
said to have been communicated through Deacon Brown, who is 
dead. And the Council cannot fail, in this connexion, to observe 
how much of the evidence in this case against Mr Pierpont depends 
upon witnesses long since dead, and papers and letters which have, 
accidentally, been lost. 

It ought to be understood, that so far as any confidence is pre- 
tended between Mr Pierpont and Dr Bemis, the respondent denies 
the slightest knowledge of it. How does Dr Bemis sustain this 
charge ? He says, that in 1821, now twenty years ago, he had a 
conversation with Mr Pierpont in relation to this hone, which he 
had invented in 1811, and kept secret until about that time, when 
it became known to Deacon Brown ; that Mr Pierpont desired per- 
mission to make one of these for a dressing-case, which he was then 
fitting up ; that he gave him permission to make one, told him he 
could go to a Mr Davis's and purchase a file, and, by annealing it, 
he could work off the rough parts of the file, and it would then an- 
swer his purpose ; that soon after this, — a few days or a few weeks, 
he thinks, — Mr Pierpont called and showed him a cylindrical 
razor-strop, into which he had inserted the hone. The razor-strop 
was of his own invention, and he Dr Bemis, had heard of its being 
in use before. These are the only two conversations he had with 
Mr Pierpont, and he admits there was nothing at the time to fix in 
his mind the language used by either party. He states, however, 
that he expressed to the respondent his wish that the hone should 
be kept a secret, because he meant to take out a patent for it, as 
soon as his health and business permitted. This is the substance 
of his testimony, as I now am able to recall it. Every thing here 
depends upon the accuracy of Dr Bemis ; a slight error as to the 
original conversations, might change the character of the transac- 
tion. Is his statement entitled to implicit confidence ? Although 
he affected to testify from written memoranda, is he not mistaken 



268 



several years in his time ? Mr Wells, the manufacturer of the 
cylindrical razor-strops, has testified that the first he ever made or 
knew of being made, was as late as 1824. Dr Bemis says the 
reason why he wanted the invention kept a secret was, that he 
meant to take out a patent for it. Ts that true ? If so, why did he 
not take one? He had made the invention, as he says, in 1811, 
and no one knew of it till 1821. Mr Pierpont had regarded it of 
so little consequence, that he never happened to speak of it or to 
exhibit his strop, with this hone in it, for aught that appears, for 
nearly ten years more, and yet Dr Bemis never, during this period, 
took any measures to obtain the patent. In 1832, Dr Bemis was 
apprized that Mr Babbit was manufacturing these hones, and was 
told by Mr Ashton, that Mr Pierpont was the inventor. Why, if 
there had been this betraying of confidence, did he not then take 
measures to secure his invention by letters-patent ? If his discov- 
ery had been fraudulently betrayed, he could still have protected 
his rights in regard to it, as well as before. But he has never, 
from that day to this, done aught towards taking out a patent for 
his invention. He gives, as a reason for this, that he has been 
waiting for Mr Pierpont to make an explanation ; and though he 
has often met him, he has never asked of him the explanation he 
desired. So far from it, he says that after seeing the hones at 
Ashton's, he sent word to Mr Pierpont, by Deacon Brown, that if 
he, Mr Pierpont, would attend to making out the specifications for 
a patent, he would share with him the profits they would make, 
which he thought might have be«n at least several thousand 
dollars. 

Would Dr Bemis, if he regarded himself the author of a val- 
uable invention, which had been stolen from him by treachery and 
fraud, have gone to the man who had betrayed him, and offered to 
divide the profits of the invention with him ? would he have lain by 
in silence ten years more, and taken no step to protect his legal 
rights, to wait for an explanation from one who had used him thus 
falsely ? 

The truth is, in 1831, the steel hone, if it ever was a secret, had 
ceased to be one. Mr Pierpont, if he had ever considered it as 
made known to him in confidence, must have felt as much absolved 
from all obligation to regard it so any longer, as he would the 
secret of a friend that he was engaged to be married, after the 
engagement had been performed, and he had reared up a family 
of children. 

The witnesses all state that any metal will answer the purposes 
of a hone, with the aid of the paste that is used upon it ; but the 
advantage of steel is, that it may be made lighter, stiffer, and more 
portable than other metals. Steel had been used by Mr Babbit for 
polishing, grinding, and sharpening gravers for twenty-five years 
Mr Boyden, of Foxboro 1 had made or used steel hones for sharp 



269 



ening razors before 1820, and had received his information how 
to manufacture them from another, who himself had made and 
used them. 

In January, 1831, the Journal of the Franklin Institute, publish- 
ed in this country, contained a full description of a steel hone, 
which had been in use for years in England. 

Thirteen years ago, Mr Dixon thinks, he saw them in use in 
England, and he has bills of his own importations of the article 
for sale, at least ten years old, and Mr Willard imported them for 
sale in 1831. 

Here, then, before Mr Pierpont ever heard that Mr Babbit had 
seen his hone, steel hones were in use all around him, were openly 
advertised and sold in the hardware shops in Boston, and there was 
nothing that could have been protected in respect to them ; and 
yet he is charged with having injured Dr Bemis by having betray- 
ed a secret. 

Where men are charged with crimes, we look to see what mo 
tive can have impelled them to the act, before we are ready to pre- 
sume them guilty. And what motive could have induced Mr Pier- 
pont to deceive and defraud Dr Bemis ? He had no hostile feel- 
ing towards him. He never received a cent for the disclosure, and 
the disclosure itself was made to a stranger, who was not even his 
neighbor. 

But the ground of the Proprietors seems to have been shifted 
upon the introduction of the respondent's testimony, and it has 
been said, that, though steel hones had been in public use, they 
were hardened steel, while those of Dr Bemis were softened or an- 
nealed. 

In the first place, it does not appear whether the first lot import- 
ed by Mr Dixon were or were not of hardened steel. They were 
used with paste, in the same manner that Bemis's was used. But 
it is proved that Mr Boyden made and used steel hones, both hard 
and soft, and with, as well as without paste. 

Nor is it true, that Dr Bemis has ever claimed the invention of 
soft steel hones, in distinction from hard ones. It is true, he told 
Mr Pierpont that he might make a hone out of a file by annealing 
it, so that he could work it. But he says, " I considered the inven- 
tion the use of steel, with such paste as you may choose." " I had 
not known a steel base used till then ; 1 had used copper when a 
boy." "It is the paste that does the sharpening. It was my ob- 
ject to find a base." It is the paste that operates, for the instru- 
ment does not touch the base. I regard steel the best." 

Through all his testimony he laid claim to the invention of a 
steel base, in its broadest sense, without any distinction as to its be- 
ing soft or hard. And it has been proved beyond contradiction, 
that in 1831, there could have been no pretence to regard this as 
anybody's secret. 



270 



Which on the whole is the most credible, that Mr Pierpont with- 
out motive should have falsely and fraudulently cheated Dr Bemis 
out of a valuable secret, by going to a stranger and disclosing it to 
him, or that Dr Bemis, under influences -which we need not trace, 
has misrepresented, or has been mistaken ? What is character 
worth, and why do we cherish it as beyond price, unless it shall 
weigh in a case like this ? 

Are not the life and character of such a man as the respondent, 
to weigh more in the scaie of credit, than the recollections of one 
who, to aid his enemies, goes back twenty years, to hunt up some 
word or sentence, which may, by possibility, be forced into an im- 
peachment of his honesty and his honor ? 

As to the second part of this charge, that Mr Pierpont wilfully 
permitted himself to be regarded as the inventor, it is not only not 
proved, but it is utterly disproved. The hone never was adver- 
tised as Mr Pierpont's invention. He never knew that Mr Ashton, 
or anybody else, ascribed it to him. So far from it, even Dr Be- 
mis admits that Mr Babbit stated to him that Mr Pierpont said he 
did not invent it, but derived his first knowledge of it from Dr Be- 
mis, through Deacon Brown. 

The whole matter would be too frivolous thus to be noticed, if 
upon it the Proprietors had not sought to rest their charge of " a 
want of integrity," as well as of good faith, and if the respondent 
had not felt that it was altogether unfounded. 

The next specification to which the attention of the Council is di- 
rected, is that relative to the pretended pledging of the copyright 
of a book, in which Mr Fowle was interested. 

The charge is in these words : " Pledging to another the copy- 
right of a book which he had engaged with Mr W. B. Fowle not 
to dispose of, without first offerirg it to him, not having first offer- 
ed the same to said Fowle." 

It appeared in evidence, that the " American Class Book" was 
compiled by Mr Pierpont, Mr Fowle offering him for the work, to 
be published in the name of Mr Pierpont as author, the sum of five 
hundred dollars. It was published in 1823, and Mr Fowle took 
out the copyright in his own name, as t; proprietor," which, as the 
law then stood, would expire in fourteen years, viz : in 1S37. 

In 1827, Mr Pierpont compiled a new school book, called the 
" National Reader," and although four years of the copyright of 
the Class Book had expired, feeling a partiality for his first work, 
he proposed to Mr Fowle to exchange, by giving him one half of 
the copyright of the last, for one half of that of the first, to which 
he assented, and a contract was accordingly made. By this con- 
tract, neither party was to dispose of his half of either copyright, 
without having first offered it to the other, at the price at which he 
could sell it for. They did not themselves publish either of these 
works, but sold the right to publish, for a certain number of years, 



271 



to publishers at certain rates of compensation. In 1830, they 
made a joint contract with Richardson, Lord & Holbrook, for pub- 
lishing the Class Book up to 1837, when the term of the copyright 
expired, and in the same year made a similar contract, with the 
same firm, for publishing the Reader up to 1841, when it will be 
remembered the copyright for that work also expired. By the 
terms of these contracts, each of the parties was to be paid his own 
equal share of the sum to be annually received for the right of pub- 
lishing these books, by separate notes for the amount. The only 
pledging of either of these rights, which has been proved, was to 
Messrs Fairbanks, Loring & Co. in regard to which the following 
facts appeared. This firm had been induced to loan to a brother 
of the respondent, and a person by the name of Tole, upon their 
notes, endorsed or signed by the respondent, something over three 
thousand dollars, and they had also loaned to the same brother and 
Tole, upon a note signed by them and another brother, another sum 
of one thousand dollars, but for this, the respondent was in no wise 
holden. The enterprise upon which the brother had entered, and 
for which this money was wanted, was the manufacture of screws. 

In 1833, the respondent, to secure the payment of the notes for 
which he was holden, voluntarily made over to Fairbanks, Loring 
& Company, by contract, a right to receive his share of the pro- 
ceeds of the contracts above mentioned, with Richardson, Lord, 
&c, and, the year following, after it had been ascertained that the 
enterprise had failed, and the parties to the other note were unable 
to pay it, the respondent, believing that Fairbanks, Loring & Co. 
had made the loan in consequence of the confidence they felt in 
the makers of the note because he had originally introduced them, 
came forward of his own accord, and made himself liable for its 
payment, by signing the note, and pledged the copyright of another 
book, to secure its payment. 

Under these circumstances, the respondent is charged with act- 
ing dishonorably towards Mr Fowle, for having thus endeavored 
to sustain his honor, in his dealings with Fairbanks, Loring & Co. 
But had it been an actual pledge of the copyright itself, he had a 
perfect right to do so, without thereby violating the contract he had 
made with Fowle. This position has been fully settled by our Su- 
preme Court, in the case of hovering v. Fogg, (18 Pick. 542,) to 
which I will refer the Council. In fact, however, he never under- 
took to pledge the copyright, and as to the contract with R. L. & 
H., he neither could, nor did he attempt to, make over any more 
than his half of it. He merely gave F. L. & Co. an authority to 
receive his share of the proceeds of that contract, as they fell due, 
an authority, by the way, which they never exercised, for they suf- 
fered Mr Pierpont to manage the whole business, and received their 
pay through his hands. So far, therefore, as any pledge of a 
copyright is concerned, the charge falls to the ground. 



272 



But as the ruling of the Council as to the introduction of evi- 
dence, has opened the defendant's life to examination, whether the 
charges have been specified or not, Mr Fowle has been permitted 
to spread whatever causes of complaint he has against Mr Pierpont, 
and he has availed himself of it, by presenting himself twice be- 
fore them, the last time, with a view of explaining his former tes- 
timony, after it had become necessary, by the testimony offered on 
the other side, though with what success he has done this, I shall 
leave to the Council to judge. 

Mr Fowle at first complained that Mr Pierpont, in 1836, dis- 
posed of his half of the right to publish the Class Book, for a term 
of years, to a publisher, without having consulted with Mr Fowle, 
whereby he was left at the mercy of the publisher, as to the price 
which he himself should demand for his own half. Had it been 
the case that Mr Pierpont disposed of his half of the right to pub- 
lish, before Mr Fowle had done so, it is not easy to see why the 
publisher would not be as much at the mercy of Mr Fowle, as he 
was at that of the publisher. Neither could publish without the 
consent of the other, and the man who had paid a large sum for 
half the right, would be but indifferently situated to coerce his co- 
proprietor as to terms. 

Be that, however, as it may, it is denied that any such contract 
was made by Mr Pierpont, or that Mr Fowle was ever injured a 
cent by any contract ever made by the respondent. 

The right to publish, acquired by Richardson, Lord & Holbrook, 
had become the property of Mr Bowen, in December, 1835, 
through Carter & Hendee, to whom it passed from R. L. & H. In 
January, 1836, while Mr Pierpont was in Europe, Mr Fowle made 
a contract in regard to his half of the copyright with Mr Bowen, 
covering the Class Book, from Dec. 8, 1835, to June 22, 1837, and 
the Reader, from the same date in December, to 1841, the respec- 
tive limits of the copyright to these books. 

In October 1836, Mr Pierpont made a similar contract with Mr 
Bowen, in regard to his half of these works, covering the time 
from December 8, 1835, till the expiration of five years. 

In his attempted explanation of his first statement, that the sale 
to Bowen was first made by Mr P., Mr Fowle states that this con- 
tract was a mere compounding of the former contract made with 
R. L. & H., by receiving gross sums instead of annual payments. 
If so, then he cannot complain that Mr Pierpont, afterwards, com- 
pounded in the same manner. But he does complain that Mr Pier- 
pont, as to the Class Book, by extending his contract five years, 
covered a time of nearly three years longer, than his own contract 
had done, and by thus anticipating him, and by setting up a claim 
to the reversion of the copyright, after the expiration of the first 
term of fourteen years, prevented his making as good a contract 
with Mr Bowen, for the term after 1837, as he otherwise could 
have done. 



273 



Now as to making a contract with Mr Bowen, it has been proved 
by Mr Williams, himself a party to it, that so far from its being 
less advantageous than it otherwise would have been, it was actu- 
ally upon as favorable terms as that with Mr Pierpont, more favora- 
ble, if anything, than that of January, 1836, and in no way affect- 
ed, as to price, by the claim made by the respondent to own the 
whole reversionary interest in the copyright. 

But perhaps, with the feelings of Mr Fowle, a fairer statement 
ought not to have been expected. He has shown himself willing 
to swell the tide against the respondent, by obtruding his own pri- 
vate disputes upon your attention, and crowns his effort here, by 
calling for, and reading his own private letter to Mr Pierpont, in 
which he denounces him as a pirate, as well as by other kindred 
epithets, because he has ventured to claim the rights which he be- 
lieves the law secures to him, and for which he does not believe 
Mr Fowle has ever paid a cent. 

What right of Mr Fowle, I would ask, did Mr Pierpont violate, 
by making a contract embracing a period after the expiration of 
the copyright ? At most, he only disposed of but half, when, in 
fact, he might have lawfully disposed of the whole right to publish 
these books. This claim of Mr Pierpont to be the owner of the 
whole copyright, after the expiration of the first term, was known 
to Mr Fowle before 1836, and has been the subject of discussion 
between them ever since, and it was that a stranger might not be 
misled, that Mr P. directed his legal counsel to apprize Mr Bowen 
of the claim that he made. 

Such was Mr Pierpont's claim then, and such it is now, under 
the advice of able and judicious counsel. He has again and again 
offered to refer the question between him and Mr Fowle, to the de- 
cision of Judge Story, or referees competent to determine it. But 
Mr Fowle has objected to submitting it as a question of law, and 
talks of Equity, while abusing Mr Pierpont in no measured terms. 
It may be well to inquire into this matter of equity, although it is 
difficult to see why Mr Fowle has brought the question before this 
Council, unless it is to forestall an opinion while he can be a wit- 
ness in his own favor. What is the equity ? Mr Pierpont makes 
a book, Mr Fowle pays him for this, and the use of his name and 
literary reputation, five hundred dollars. Without a dollar's out- 
lay, of which we have heard, he receives more dollars every year 
for the right of publishing this book, than he paid for the work it- 
self. The " Reader" proves a more profitable work, in fact, than 
the Class Book. He enjoys these, the fruits of another's labor and 
talents and reputation, for fourteen years, and by his own showing, 
thereby realizes from seven to ten thousand dollars, and now comes 
forward to complain of Mr Pierpont, for having, as the author, 
sought to protect what he regards as his legal rights to his own 
property, for the benefit of his wife and children. Nay more ; he 
35 



274 



has sold one half the copyright since it became, as Mr Pierpont be- 
lieves, his exclusive property, for the term of five years, for which 
he has realized more than fifteen hundred dollars, and now charges 
the man to whom he is indebted for all this, with a want of integ- 
rity in his dealings ! 

I have read of a hard master " reaping where he had not sowed, 
and gathering where he had not strowed," but I never heard a ser- 
vant charged before with a want of integrity for not continuing to 
sow and scatter for such a master. . 

The legal right is believed to be with Mr Pierpont. It is a ques- 
tion of law. Let it go to the Courts to be settled, and let them de- 
clare Mr Pierpont wrong in his law, before this Council shall con- 
demn him for a want of integrity in his dealings, for entertaining 
an honest opinion as to his legal rights, based upon the language of 
the statute and the counsel of his legal adviser. 

But it may be said that as a clergyman, it is improper for the 
respondent to rely upon his legal rights, or attempt to enforce them. 
Let this be tried by a homely illustration. A minister of the gos- 
pel leases one half his house to a tenant for fourteen years. At 
the end of the period, however, the tenant claims the premises as 
his own, and refuses to surrender possession. What shall the own- 
er do ? — may he safely tell the intruder that the house is his own, 
and he means to resort to the law to recover its possession ? Or is 
a clergyman such an outlaw, that every harpy may prey upon him 
with impunity, because he can only complain at the peril of losing 
his parish and his reputation, by a decree of a council of churches ? 

I now pass to another part of this charge of a want of " scru- 
pulous integrity" " in his secular dealings," which relates to the 
alleged contract with Mr Clapp. The specification is, " wholly 
neglecting and omitting, without justifiable cause, to furnish W. 
W. Clapp with letters," &c. u he having entered into a written 
agreement so to do, and having received," &c. " the consideration 
for writing said letters." Plainly implying, it will be perceived, 
that Mr Pierpont had received money of Mr Clapp, which he never 
repaid. 

How have the facts turned out upon investigation in relation to 
this charge ? 

That Mr Pierpont received the sum of two hundred and fifty 
dollars of Mr Clapp, is not denied ; that both parties expected that 
for this Mr Pierpont would write letters from Europe, for Mr 
Clapp's paper, is not controverted. But that both parties regarded 
it as uncertain whether this could be done, and if not done, that it 
was understood the money should be returned, the written contract 
between them itself shows. Mr Pierpont had been extremely sick, 
he was about to take a voyage for the restoration of his health, he 
knew nothing of the difficulty of writing letters for the press, 
while making a hasty tour in a foreign country. And all this was 
known to Mr Clapp, who was willing to advance this sum of money 



275 



on these contingences, as expressed in the contract — viz. " If less 
than that (fifty letters) shall be written during my absence, or if I 
shall return before two hundred and fifty dollars are exhausted, 
then I am to repay to him (Clapp) the amount of such deficiency, 
after my return." This money was advanced to Mr Pierpont by 
two drafts which he got discounted, each for one hundred and 
twenty-five dollars, dated Oct. 3, one on three, and the other on six 
months' time. 

Now in truth, before his return, before the first of these drafts 
fell due, Mr Pierpont, finding he could not write as he had under- 
taken to do, remitted the amount of both drafts to Mr Clapp, in a 
letter of the 25th December, from Rome, which was received by 
Mr Clapp early in March, and the money was at once made use of 
by him. 

One would have supposed that by such a repayment, and by the 
acceptance of the money, the contract would be cancelled. But it 
is said Mr P. neglected to write without justifiable cause ! 

So far as probabilities are to be considered, who would be ready 
to believe that a poor clergyman, pressed as Mr P. was for money, 
as stated by Mr Clapp himself, if he had physical power to pay a 
debt by his pen, would, instead of that, repay it in money, when 
by so doing, he was failing to keep his promise with his then 
friend ? So far from this being the case, it has not only been 
proved that Mr Pierpont could not write the letters, but that the 
whole matter was fully explained to Mr Clapp, in the letter of De- 
cember 25, enclosing the remittance. 

He knew that he was sick before he left home. Mr Tappan, 
who furnished him the means of remitting the amount due to Mr 
Clapp, was with him in Rome, and has stated his condition as to 
health, and his inability to write while there. Mr Clapp admits 
that Mr Pierpont stated the reasons why he did not write, and from 
the extracts from that letter published in his paper, some of these 
reasons appear. It appears there, that he had been sick in Mar- 
seilles eleven days, but Mr Clapp is not certain that he gave as a 
reason for not writing, his then ill health. Why does not Mr Clapp 
produce that letter ? He says it is mislaid, and has been lost with- 
in four or five months, although upon it rested the proof as to this 
very charge, and by it, if at all, Mr Clapp was to repel the charge 
of falsehood which he supposes Mr Pierpont made against him in 
one of the printed letters to the committee of the Proprietors. 

That letter may be lost, but how, or why, is a mystery which the 
Council is left to solve. 

Mr Clapp has said in his testimony, that Mr Pierpont in his let- 
ter said something about a " cordon sanitaire" and it has been 
tried to show that while Mr Pierpont was in Europe, no cordon 
sanitaire Was maintained. 

Let us see that letter, instead of this kind of recollection of its 



276 



contents, and you may rest assured that its statements would all 
prove true. 

It was stated, too, by Mr Clapp, that Mr Pierpont, in his letter, 
stated that on his return he would adjust the balance of interest, 
which he had never done. 

Now I have computed that balance, and I find it to be seventy- 
Jive cents ; and unless Mr Clapp is willing to allow anything for the 
long letter of December 25th, a considerable part of which he pub- 
lished, or for another communication from the same pen, published 
since that time, there is that amount due, for which Mr Clapp has 
his legal remedy, but for which this Council cannot render judg- 
ment. 

It has, however, been attempted to be shown, that Mr Pierpont 
actually wrote home letters to his wife and children, and therefore 
he might and ought to have written for Mr Clapp's paper. These 
letters were written from Asia Minor and other places, long after 
the money had been returned to Mr Clapp and the contract had 
been ended. But even if they had not been, is this Council to be 
asked to disgrace a minister for having, while abroad, found time 
and opportunity to write home to his wife, instead of employing 
this time in writing letters for a newspaper ? One thing is true : 
Mr Pierpont never sold his talents to another ; and one single piece 
of poetry, written in February, and published in the Knickerbocker, 
is the only production of his pen that ever found its way into print, 
with the exception of the long and interesting letter to Mr Clapp, 
which he himself published. 

Is this an honest charge ? Has Mr Clapp acted like a man, in 
taking back his money before it was due, and then complaining in 
Mr Pierpont's absence, and while he knew the reasons why he 
could not write, that " he had deceived him ?" Was it manly, 
when the wife of Mr Pierpont, — who had again and again been to 
him to endeavor to satisfy him that some good reason must exist 
why no letter had been received, — went to him after he had re- 
ceived the letter of the 25th of December, to give her to under- 
stand that her husband was not going to write the letters as he had 
agreed, without the slightest intimation that the money had been 
repaid, or any good reason given for failing to furnish these letters? 

I may not, if I would, appeal to the wives who are before me, for 
their judgment of such conduct ; but I appeal to this Council, what 
must have been the feelings of a wife, to whom a husband's hon- 
or is dearer than her life, who should thus be left, till the very 
hour of his return, to learn from his own declaration, for the first 
time, that he had not broken his word or been base to his friend ? 
A man who can do as Mr Clapp has done, in regard to the whole 
of this transaction, is welcome to all the honor and satisfaction he 
can derive in coming forward, by his own oath, to endeavor to 
crush the man to whom he once pretended to be a friend. 



277 



These are the charges affecting the moral integrity of my client. 
They have never been heard of in the history of this controversy, 
till his opposers have gone out into the highways and byways to 
bring in those who have had hardihood enough to act as his accu- 
sers. And do not such charges and such proofs give a character 
to the whole of these proceedings against the respondent ? 

Akin to the charge of crime, and scarcely lower in the scale of 
morals, is that of Ingratitude. It was not formally specified in 
any of these charges ; but the Proprietors have introduced proof, 
that soon after the return of Mr Pierpont from Europe, many of 
his then friends, including some that are now opposed to him, con- 
tributed liberally to relieve him from pecuniary embarrassment. 

He had been the minister of the parish for seventeen years, 
during which time the society had never been taxed a dollar extra 
for the supply of the pulpit. By advice and consent of the society, 
he had been absent most of the year, had incurred heavy expenses, 
had returned in health to his people, and they nobly and generous- 
ly stepped forward to aid him by pecuniary relief — and no one 
more so than one venerable gentleman whom he now saw among 
his opposers. But come what may, the generosity and kindness 
that he had then experienced, can never be forgotten. It has sunk 
deep into his heart, and the recollection of it will be grateful, even 
if the worst purposes of his enemies should now be accomplished. 
He knew that this could never have been given as hush money, or 
with a view to trammel him in the free exercise of his opinions, 
even though from the manner in which it has been introduced here, 
one might almost infer it was thought he had violated some im- 
plied pledge by the course he had pursued. (Here the Proprie- 
tors' counsel expressly disclaimed any such intention — it was 
offered, they said, to show the harmony that prevailed at that time 
in the society.) I thank the gentlemen for their explanation, 
though I could not have done them the injustice to suppose they 
could have offered him this money from other motives than those 
of friendship and respect. 

We have now reached the second general division of the 
charges, which relate to the manner in which Mr Pierpont has per- 
formed his ministerial duties. He is said to have neglected these, 
by reason of his attention having been diverted to " secular pur- 
suits and popular controversies." Among these a too great devo- 
tion of time to mechanical contrivances is first named. 

What are the proper limits of a clergyman's sphere of duty ? 
May he not employ his leisure hours in relaxation, suited to his 
taste and health ? If his taste leads him to indulge in historical re- 
searches, may he not gratify it, even by giving the result of his 
labors to the public ? Or if he feels an interest in literary or 
theological discussions, may he not contribute of his pen to the pe- 
riodicals of the day ? If he has a taste or genius for the fine arts, 
may he not gratify these ? May he not play a piano, or listen to 



288 



its music, if his wife or daughter plays it ? If his taste and genius 
are directed towards the mechanic arts, may he not indulge even 
these, if, at the same time, he is securing his health by bodily exer- 
cise ? May he not saw the wood for his own fire, or fashion a 
stove to burn it in ? And may he not even go so far, and yet be 
innocent, as to devise a strop for setting an edge upon the razor 
with which he trims his beard ? 

You may call this trifling, but how can a charge like this be 
treated otherwise ? When, I would ask, did even mechanical labor 
cease to be an honorable, a fitting employment for a preacher of 
the Gospel ? How was it of old ? — Paul wrought at the craft of 
a tent-maker at Corinth, and our Saviour was himself a carpenter. 

The next of these " secular pursuits" I shall notice, is that of 
" compiling school books." 

This charge must strike the mind of every one with some sur- 
prise, when it is remembered that from the earliest history of our 
Commonwealth, ministers have, by law, been charged with the 
care and supervision of our school : and when it. is remembered, 
too, how much of the usefulness of our common schools depends 
upon the class books which are used in them. It appears that for 
several years, Mr Pierpont was a member of the School Committee 
of this city, to his appointment to which office it does not appear 
that any in his society were then opposed. His attention was 
thereby called to the defective character of the school books then 
in use, and to remedy this he prepared one or more reading books 
which have met with universal approbation. And now, is this to 
be charged as an offence ? Is the cause of education to be here- 
after interdicted to our clergy ? Who shall superintend the moral 
and intellectual culture of the young, if they may not ? While 
there is a spirit awakened in the land upon this momentous subject, 
shall a man, by becoming a minister, cease to have a right to feel 
and act in the cause ? 

The schools throughout the country have been deeply indebted 
to Mr Pierpont, for what he has done for them, in this very behalf, 
and is he now to be held up to censure for having lent his aid to 
the great cause of education ? 

Phrenology stands next in the category of offences. And what 
is involved in the charge ? Although it is alluded to in the com- 
plaint as a " supposed science," yet, even in that light, it is diffi- 
cult to conceive wherein lies the respondent's fault. It treats of the 
powers and functions of the human mind, and seeks by anew anal- 
ysis of these, to furnish a more simple and rational system by which 
to study and understand its phenomena and its laws. 

Will it be said that a minister may not interest himself to study 
and understand the discoveries that are made in science ? Is the 
science of the mind — the immortal principle in man, foreign from 
a minister's duty ? Is not the soul to be educated and trained for 



279 



another life, and is it unworthy of a minister to study how this 
can best be done ? 

Try phrenology by its effects upon those who have pursued it 
the furthest, and how will its tendency be found ? Go ask the 
stranger, when he visits the beautiful spot where the dead rest so 
sweetly amidst the shades of Mount Auburn, why he pauses to pay 
the homage of respect to that simple monument on which the eye 
rests among the first that it sees on entering that spot. And he 
will tell you that in distant lands, or on the furthest confines of our 
own vast continent, he has heard the name and learned to respect 
the virtues of that pioneer in this science who sleeps beneath that 
marble. 

If we take but a single branch of this science, its connexion 
with the phenomena of that most dreadful of all maladies — insan- 
ity — who, at this day, will deny to phrenology the dignity of a 
place among kindred sciences, or in view of its developements 
will say, that it is unbecoming a religious teacher to examine in- 
to and present to the minds of others, its facts and its laws ? 

Imprisonment for debt and abolition of slavery are the only 
remaining items in this general charge except one to which I 
shall have occasion to call your attention in another part of my 
remarks. 

I do not now propose to consider the conduct of Mr. Pierpont 
upon these subjects as a minister, as that must form another part 
of this case, and therefore only speak in this connexion of what 
he has done, out of his pulpit, as a citizen. 

That as a citizen, he has endeavored to ameliorate the laws in 
regard to poor debtors is not denied, and in this he was but a lit- 
tle in advance of public sentiment. That, as we all know, has 
undergone such a change that imprisonment for debt, as a sys- 
tem, is well nigh abolished. 

As a citizen, he may have spoken against slavery, but of this, 
however, there has been no proof. But suppose he has spoken 
against both imprisonment of poor debtors and slavery, is he for 
that reason to be condemned and cast out as a minister ? Does 
a man by becoming a watchman over human beings cease to be 
a man, or to have a right to indulge in human sympathies ? 

Here I will leave these charges, and will inquire, even if Mr. 
Pierpont has done all that is here set down against him, where is 
the proof of one duty neglected, one trust violated ? 

The attempt, to prove this has most signally failed. They 
have gone over his ministerial life, of more than twenty-one 
years, and what have they found ? 

Mr. Crane undertook to tell of a supposed neglect some eighteen 
years ago — but he became soon after satisfied with Mr. Pierpont's 
course, and for years was one of his strongest friends and warm- 
est admirers. He has told us of the complaint of his aged moth- 
er-in-law of Mr. Pierpont's neglect to visit her, and it turned out 



280 



that on one occasion, when Mr. Crane was treasurer of the par- 
ish, Mr. Pierpont and his wife called at his door in the evening 
to see him, and not finding him at home, did not call upon the 
mother, who resided in his family. 

On the other hand, Mr. Everett frankly admitted that he was 
perfectly satisfied on this ground, and Mr. Hay, with a frankness 
and honorable candor which characterized his whole testimony, 
told you there was no cause of complaint against Mr. P. for a 
neglect of his parochial duties. In this he was sustained by Mr. 
Smith ; and Mr. Tileston alone had furnished any ground of 
complaint, and that was for a supposed neglect to visit his aged 
mother. 

In regard to this, it appeared that she lived with her daughter, 
whose family did not attend Mr. Pierpont's preaching, and she 
herself, by reason of her infirmities, had not attended meeting for 
many years, before her death in 1835. He had never been invi- 
ted to her house that he did not go, and it was proved that on 
several occasions during the time covered by the complaint, he 
visited her, and that in every instance of domestic affliction which 
came to his knowledge, he sought her out, though a part of the 
time in a remote part of the city, and carried consolation to her 
in her sorrow. 

The faithfulness of Mr. Pierpont as a parochial minister has 
been almost wholly proved by the witnesses on the other side. — 
Mr. Bradlee knew of no charge against him on this account, and 
Deacon Bass unqualifiedly bore testimony to his faithfulness as a 
minister, and his kind and courteous demeanor in his parochial 
intercourse with his people. Even to the poor, it has been prov- 
ed by Deacon May, he has been so uniformly attentive, that not 
one of them has ever complained of a single neglect, and as an 
illustration of his attention to this class of the people under his 
charge, you have heard it stated that in one case he visited an in- 
dividual as many as sixty times during a protracted sickness of 
three years. 

If we trace through his whole ministry, what scene of joy or 
sorrow do we find in which he failed to sympathize with his peo- 
ple? what marriage or baptism, what sick bed or dying couch, 
what funeral or mourning circle, did he ever neglect ? What 
poor man did he ever fail to visit, or what prisoners to minister 
unto ? 

And how many clergymen, in our whole land, are there, who, 
through a ministration of twenty-one years, could escape with 
so few complaints, or feel a consciousness that they had more 
faithfully done their duty ? 

Although both the subjects and manner of Mr. Pierpont's ser- 
mons, have been together made the ground of complaint, I pro- 
pose to consider these distinct from each other. And in regard 
to the subjects which are charged as objectionable, they are stated 



281 



to be— the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits — imprisonment 
for debt — abolition of slavery, and other popular controversies. 

So far as the first is concerned, it has been testified by the wit- 
nesses on both sides, that with the exception of one sermon 
preached many years ago, he has never preached a sermon on 
Temperance from his pulpit. He may have alluded to it, but so 
far from this being a cause of complaint, had a stranger heard 
the testimony of Mr. Crane when detailing the causes and grounds 
of dissatisfaction in this society, he could hardly have conjectur- 
ed that Mr. Pierpont had himself ever heard of the subject of 
the sale of ardent spirits, much less that he had ever given of- 
fence by his exertions in the cause. 

It has been proved that he has preached one sermon on impris- 
onment for debt, some twenty years ago, and the facts which led 
to it, have themselves been testified of. In the cold season of 
the year, he was called to officiate at the funeral of one of his 
parishioners, who had died in child-bed. He found assembled 
around her coffin, seven children, thinly and poorly clad, the el- 
dest about fifteen years, and the youngest an infant, and these all 
daughters. He looked around upon the cheerless walls of the 
chamber where they had assembled, and he asked for the father 
of that group, and the husband of that dead mother ; and was 
told that he was in jail — in jail for debt, — and that his creditor, 
though appealed to, to release him long enough to close the eyes 
of his dying wife, refused, unless the debt could first be paid. 

In view of this scene, he did preach against a law that could 
tolerate such barbarity in a christian land ; and though the cred- 
itor was his own parishioner, he would have been unworthy of 
the title of a christian minister, if he could have held his peace. 
If cruelty and oppression like this may not be alluded to — if laws 
so barbarous in their operation may not be spoken of in the pul- 
pit, half the mission of our Saviour may be defeated, and the 
purposes of his gospel be set at nought. 

We all remember what the law then was, and the world (our 
own Commonwealth among the rest) has kept pace with the doc- 
trines that Mr. P. then dared to advocate. He has never denied 
his agency for the relief of poor debtors; but a more just and 
enlightened system of laws has rendered it unnecessary for him 
ever again to offend his enemies by such an effort in the cause of 
humanity. 

Much as has been said on the subject in the course of this tri- 
al, he has never been personal in his remarks from the pulpit. — 
That the application of these remarks was understood by his 
hearers, may have been true. But it was because it was known 
to them that the abuse complained of, existed. 

And is a minister to be interdicted from preaching against vice 
or cruelty or oppression, because his remarks may touch some 
member of his society ? What is preaching good for, if it can 
36 



282 



only bear on vices that we never witness, and sins which we are 
never tempted to commit ? 

Upon the principle contended for on the side of the Proprie- 
tors, no minister can censure any vices whatever, unless it be 
those which are too remote to be worthy of notice. If he at- 
tacks a vice, of which one or two only of his parishioners are 
guilty, he is condemned as being personal. If he waits till it 
becomes general, and there are many who indulge in it, he may 
no longer attack it, lest he be charged with being excited, and be 
sacrificed for indiscretion in giving cause for offence, and making 
disturbance in his society. You cannot draw a line without 
either hedging in the pulpit by arbitrary rules, or leaving it free 
to the honest judgment of the preacher. 

Abolition. It appears that Mr. Pierpont has preached one ser- 
mon, after the " Alton affair," as it has been called, in 1837, which 
gave offence. That sermon is before the public, printed as it 
was delivered, and the public have long since had an opportunity 
to judge of its merits or demerits. Whether our sympathies 
are with Abolitionists or not, who will say that the subject of 
slavery is one that must never be referred to in the pulpit ? — 
Where else can you find an evil, moral or political, so dangerous 
in its tendencies as that of slavery ? There is not a candid 
slaveholder at the south, who will not tell you that the evils of 
slavery, in a national point of view, to say nothing of its moral 
tendencies, are incalculably great. And while ecclesiastical bo- 
dies, legislatures, and every body else, are at liberty to discuss 
this topic, shall it be said that no pulpit in Boston must dare 
do it ? 

But lay aside the connexion which that affair had with the exis- 
tence of slavery, and there was enough in it to call forth the voice 
of the pulpit, if it dared to be free — a man shot down in the 
streets by a mob for daring to defend the freedom of his own 
press, and the sanctity of his own premises. And yet it is grave- 
ly charged against Mr. Pierpont, that in alluding to these outra- 
ges he was excited in his manner. And doubtless it was so : the 
man who could then speak of them with coolness and indiffer- 
ence, scarcely deserved the name of a man ; his sympathies must 
have been dead ; every generous feeling within him must have 
been as torpid as a slave dealer's conscience. 

There was no danger of being personal, for no one in his socie- 
ty was interested in slave property or labor, and the scene of the 
outrage was far distant. He was maintaining a great principle, 
and even Mr. Crane, though offended at first, was satisfied after 
an interview, that his purposes were right, and the ends he aim- 
ed at were honest and pure. 

One other sermon, of which you have heard much during this 
trial, which Mr. Pierpont delivered in January, 1839, entitled 
" Moral Rule of Political Action," seems to have been the cause 



283 



of much dissension among certain of his hearers. Unfortunately 
for those who complain, this sermon was printed and published 
precisely as it was delivered, and it is now before the Council to 
judge, for themselves, if it contained any legitimate cause of of- 
fence. Mr. Crane heard but the first half of it, and has never 
heard or read a word of it besides, and so sensitive was he, that, 
from that moment, he became the irreconcilable enemy of Mr. 
Pierpont. But who else has complained of it ? Mr. Bradlee, 
who heard the latter part of it, says he was not dissatisfied with 
it. No man from that day to this has seen cause to criticise or 
condemn its sentiments or its language, though it has been be- 
fore the public for at least two years. I beg the Council to read 
it and to see whether it was the fault of the sermon, or the jeal- 
ously of the hearer, that caused the sensation which it seems to 
have produced in one or more minds. 

It treats of the duties which a citizen, as moral agent, owes to 
his country ; and are these, to be excluded from the Pulpit in 
Hollis Street ! Mr. Hay tells us he does not come to church to 
get his religion, but to be made better. And will not minds like 
his gladly receive instruction as to their social and civil relations 
in life ? If the doctrine now apparently contended for by the 
Proprietors is to prevail, what will there be left for the minister 
of Hollis-Street Meeting House, upon which he can preach ? If 
he may not touch upon prevailing vices, nor allude to national 
evils, nor speak to his people of their duties as citizens, he must 
illustrate that perfection as a minister, of which the anecdote is 
sometimes told, when one man, having claimed great merit in his 
own minister in not preaching politics, was answered by the 
boast of another, that his minister never troubled his hearers 
about politics or religion either. 

Will you condemn a minister because he cannot suit the taste 
of every man in his congregation ? 

I trust you will not be misled by the title of this sermon. It 
was not preached to influence any election. If it had been pub- 
lished while Mr. Crane was a candidate for the legislature, his 
suspicions, though unfounded, might have been pardoned. But 
it was a mere didactic essay upon the connexion between moral 
and political duties, and was delivered in the Winter, after the 
election of Mr. Crane had been made sure. And the whole diffi- 
culty seems to have grown out of his extreme sensitiveness lest 
Mr. Pierpont had said, or was going to say something which 
would trench upon his own independence as a legislator. He 
tells us he had sat week after week, watching Mr. Pierpont in 
his pulpit, and fearing he would say something that would offend 
his enemies — and this seems to have been the first time he had 
detected him in fault. 

He ascribes his offence at this sermon, to the supposed viola- 
tion which Mr. Pierpont thereby made, of what Mr. Crane is 



284 



pleased to call a pledge, when, in his printed letters, Mr. Pier- 
pont says, " if, therefore, I have entered too earnestly, or too ex- 
clusively into a few topics," &c. " I shall faithfully endeavor to 
recall all undue attention from the former topics," &c. Clearly, 
it must have been this watchful jealousy, and not the subject 
nor the matter of the sermon, which caused this excitement in 
the mind of Mr. Crane — an excitement that he would not suffer 
to be allayed by any interview with Mr. Pierpont, but seems to 
have fanned and kept alive unmitigated, to this hour. 

If the opponents of Mr. Pierpont would accord to him a tithe 
of the same independence of opinion towards his people as a 
preacher, which they, as members of his Society, claim to exer- 
cise towards the pulpit, there never would have been complaint 
against him, either on the ground of the subjects, or the matter 
of his sermons. 

But to return to the evidence on this point. It thus seems 
that in the course of twenty years, the respondent has preached 
three sermons, the subjects of which were objectionable to por- 
tions of his hearers. No one, however, except Mr. Crane, ever 
left the Society on account of them, and it is questionable even 
in his case how far that was the moving cause of his irreconcila- 
ble disaffection. 

With a parish like that of Hollis street, made up of indepen- 
dent minds, who, as we have seen, are in the habit of thinking and 
speaking for themselves, is it not remarkable that so few grounds 
of complaint on this subject should be found to exist 2 Does it 
not speak volumes in favor of the general character of his minis- 
trations? What minister is there, who has dared to utter his 
own sentiments from his own pulpit, who has escaped with fewer 
complaints than those which have been proved to exist against 
the Pastor of Hollis street? This Council need not be told of 
the difficulties under which a minister must labor in attempting 
to conform to the tastes and opinions of his hearers. Some ask 
him to preach on a particular subject, as was the case when Mr. 
Pierpont was requested to give his views of Mr. Parker's ser- 
mon, and for so doing others are offended. If he selects subjects 
of local and present interest, he is " personal " or " excited." 
While, if for peace, he avoids these, he grows "philosophical," 
and ceases to be interesting. 

Those who go back to the days of Dr. West or Mr. Holley, to 
fix a criterion by which to test the preaching of Mr. Pierpont, 
forget the changes through which the public mind has been pas- 
sing during the last thirty years. The human mind has been 
struggling to be free, and on the subject of religious opinions it 
is more free. Men are more enlightened, in many respects, than 
they then were, and the past is not the best test of what the pre- 
sent demands. 

Look through the testimony in this case, and then say if Mr. 



285 



Pierpont has ever selected a topic more exciting, more unbecom- 
ing a Christian minister, than " Righteousness, temperance, and 
the judgment to come." And shall he be condemned, because 
some rich and lordly Felix has trembled at the exciting truths 
which he has uttered? 

Is a minister to be made a senseless and irresponsible automa- 
ton, to be moved like a piece of mechanism? Or must he employ 
his time in traversing his Parish to ascertain what will not ex- 
cite or displease them? Was it by such a priesthood, and such 
a ministration, that the gospel was first propagated in direct war- 
fare with the prejudices, the vices and the passions of the pagan 
world? Was it by such preaching, that Luther awakened 
Europe with the trumpet-call of the Reformation? Or was it by 
such means, that Robinson gathered his church in the days of 
persecution and danger, to become the Mother of the indepen- 
dent churches of New England? 

May, I repeat, may all the world, besides, feel and speak upon 
the great questions of morals that are agitating the public mind, 
and the clergy alone be forbid to do this ? Where, upon this 
principle, would one at least of their brethren whose name need 
not be repeated, for it is familiar on both sides of the Atlantic, 
find himself placed by such a decision? Where would now have 
been the cause of " Liberal Christianity," if such a doctrine as 
this had heretofore prevailed? And will the representatives of 
these churches publish to the world that they are ready to con- 
demn their own brethren, for daring to utter truths too boldly 
and fearlessly? 

Try this principle by its consequences. Either a minister 
must be free, or his people have a right to dictate what he may 
or may not preach. If the people have a right to dictate, the 
minister is bound in duty to obey. If he may not, therefore, 
allude to imprisonment for debt, because Col. Baker, as he said, 
thinks it a good law, or the connexion between moral and polit- 
ical duties, because Mr. Crane thinks it an improper interference, 
or Abolition, because Mr. Bass feels that his relatives at the 
south are thereby affected, or Temperance, because some dozen 
or more of his hearers may be affected in their business, why 
may not Mr. Redman, another of the Proprietors, on the same 
ground, object to his preaching a future state of rewards and pun- 
ishments, because, as he has told you, he did not himself believe 
such a state existed? 

Pause, and see where your decision will lead, before you sanc- 
tion doctrines and consequences like these. 

It is alleged against Mr. Pierpont, that his manner of preach- 
ing is excited, that it wants decorum, gravity, gentleness and dis- 
cretion. 

It is admitted that he is an eloquent man, a bold and earnest 
preacher, and who does not know that zeal, ardor and excitability 



286 



are essential ingredients of eloquence? — God has joined them 
together, and they cannot be put asunder. 

But was not this all known when he was settled, and is it not 
too late now to urge these considerations as a cause for dissolv- 
ing a contract made with such a knowledge? Has he changed 
in this respect by becoming more excitable ? Does not the evi- 
dence, if it shows anything, tend rather to prove the contrary ? 
Mr. Crane has given us to understand that at times Mr. Pierpont 
has kept back the full expression of his own feelings and opin- 
ions, because his people " could not bear them yet." Both Mr. 
Hay and Deacon Bass say that he is less evangelical than they 
should wish, and is more philosophical than formerly. What is 
to be understood by these terms is not exactly defined, but in the 
common acceptation of the word "philosophical" one would sup- 
pose that it must imply the opposite of excitement — a calm and 
dispassionate manner. 

Nor can it escape the observation of this Council, that, whether 
a manner seems excited or otherwise, depends much upon the 
state of mind of the observer. If he sympathizes with the 
speaker, he grows unconscious, even if he is ardent, while, if he 
is opposed to him in his feelings, the manner of the speaker may 
seem even angry^ when no such feeling actually exists in his 
mind. 

Are you prepared to condemn and expel Mr. Pierpont from his 
pulpit, for the manner in which he has presented his subjects to 
his people? What is to be the standard of zeal and excitability? 
Several of this Council have presented their views upon ques- 
tions that have arisen during this trial, and though each has been 
clear, earnest and sincere in the expression of his opinions, no 
two have done it in the same manner. Where shall we find the 
standard, and whose manner may be follawed, that of Peter or of 
John, that of Luther or that of Melancthon? 

If the respondent is to be condemned on this charge, it must 
be because he has violated some rule of morals or rhetoric, and 
it is due to him and his people, that they should know, from the 
result in this case, the extent as well as the nature of his offence. 

One circumstance has been testified of, which ought to be no- 
ticed in this connexion. It is said that his manner to the stran- 
gers who attended worship at this house, the sabbath after his 
return from Europe, was not courteous. Mr. Crane says he 
said, " if they came from curiosity, he pitied them." Mr. Weld 
says he said, " he saw a great many strangers — they would be 
disappointed, he had nothing to say." Now how was the fact? 
He had returned from a long absence, he had expected to meet 
his friends alone, and had neither time nor disposition to pre- 
pare such a discourse as would gratify the curious ears of stran- 
gers, and he frankly stated so, expressing his regret that they 
must be disappointed. A grave charge, surely, to urge now as a 
cause for his removal ! 



287 



A charge, too, is brought against Mr. Pierpont, on the ground 
of his * general demeanor." Here, too, we have no standard by 
which to try the respondent. Is it not true that new editions have 
been regularly and almost constantly made to his society and his 
church? And is not the fact that such a large proportion of his 
Society, have adhered to him through all the trying scenes in 
which he has been placed, and that, too, with an unfaltering con- 
fidence and affection, enough to show how groundless are the 
vague generalities of the charge? 

There is another subject to which I ought to allude, although 
it has been a matter of surprise how it is before you at all, and 
that is the prayer offered by Mr. Pierpont at the funeral of Mrs- 
Stewart. He came here prepared to meet every charge that 
could have existed against him, when the paper of July, 1840, 
was drawn up, but he could not have anticipated, while proving" 
those charges, that evidence would be offered of acts or declara- 
tions which arose during the following year. He has not, there- 
fore, attempted to offer a word of testimony on the subject, or 
even to cross-examine the witness by whom it was proved. The 
prayer has been described — some were pleased, while others 
were dissatisfied with its language. That there had existed an 
unhappy state of feeling between the father and daughter, appears 
from the testimony put in on the other side, and the respondent 
has forborne to strip the veil from the private history of that 
family, which has thus been in part lifted before the public eye, 
or to say how far, in what he did, he followed the dying request 
of one by whose remains he was then standing. 

But I would ask, if, where the only child of a man of princely 
fortune had been suffered to die at a tavern, and during a long 
and painful sickness, that father had visited her but twice, a min- 
ister who knew it all, might not be pardoned if, in uttering the 
deep emotions of his heart, he did say, "I thank thee, heavenly 
Father, thou didst not forsake her?" 

Here, then, we have gone through with the substance of these 
various charges, and if the evidence has struck the minds of the 
Council as it has mine, you will say that not one of them all has 
been sustained. 

And yet it is not to be denied that difficulties exist, and dissen- 
tions have arisen in this Society, which to some seem irrecon- 
cilable. 

If you seek for a cause for these, it will be found in the evi- 
dence that is before you. Whatever may have been the heart- 
burnings, the feelings of coldness towards Mr. Pierpont at any 
time, they had all ceased — every thing had been reconciled, and 
he might have been the undisturbed occupant of the Hollis Street 
pulpit, if it had not been for the war which the manufacturers 
and venders of ardent spirit began against him in 1838. Here 
may be found the true origin of the present difficulties. And, as 



28S 



we trace them in the order of events, we shall find that from his 
first movements in the cause of temperance in 1838, to this hour, 
those engaged in the traffic in alcohol have been steadily and con- 
stantly at work to expel him from this pulpit; fanning every other 
cause of jealousy as it arose, and adding every new strength they 
could command, to the physical power which they have been ex- 
erting to accomplish this purpose. 

The attempt has been made on the part of some of the Propri- 
etors, through the whole of this controversy, to keep the agency 
of the distillers and venders of ardent spirit out of sight. But 
the attempt has failed. 

We were told, in one part of the trial, that dissatisfaction with 
Mr. Pierpont, built up Mr. Mott's church. But when the facts 
were inquired into, so far from any hostility existing towards him 
on the part of that society, when the corner-stone of the church 
was laid, he was called on to make the address. When the body 
of the church communicants was organized, he was called on to 
officiate, and at the dedication of the house and the ordination of 
their minister, Mr. Pierpont took an active and an interesting 
part. 

In tracing the facts which throw light upon the true origin and 
cause of the difficulties in Hollis-street society, dates become im- 
portant. 

In 1835, the society was, with a few exceptions, in great har- 
mony; a small minority existed, but even that was merged in the 
general regard for their pastor, and all united that year in aiding 
Mr. Pierpont to make his visit to Europe. 

When he returned, in August, 1836, all crowded to welcome 
him back to his pulpit, and the united congregation seem to hav® 
joined in the sentiments of that beautiful original hymn, which 
was then sung, and which has been read in your hearing. Even 
his former and his present enemies vied with his friends and with 
each other, in manifesting their regard to him, by gifts and acts 
of kindness. 

The "Alton sermon/' in December, 1837, gave offence to a 
few, but an explanation followed, a reconciliation was effected, 
and harmony continued through 1837; not a vote had been passed 
against him, nor had a person that we have heard of, seceded 
from his society since his return from Europe. 

In April, 1838, the " License Law," so called, was passed by 
the legislature, and the memorial signed by some fifteen thousand 
petitioners, in a»swer to which that law was made, was the pro- 
duction of Mr. Pierpont 's pen. 

What followed? Those whose business was affected by the 
law, were aroused, and Mr. Pierpont was made the object of 
their uncompromising hostility. In fact, it was the revival of an 
old war. 

In 1833, Mr. Pierpont made a speech at Saratoga, on the sub- 



289 



ject of Temperance, which was falsely reported, and gave great 
offence to members of his society. On his return to his people, 
he publicly and repeatedly denied having used the offensive ex- 
pression ascribed to him. But, notwithstanding this, Winsor 
Fay, a distiller, and a pew proprietor, but not a worshipper here, 
moved at the annual meeting of the parish, in September of that 
year, to reduce Mr. Pierpont's salary $500. The motion, how- 
ever, was lost, and nothing more is seen of this feeling until 1838. 

Then, just before the annual meeting in September, we find 
Mr. Atkins, a dealer in ardent spirit, giving notice to a friend, 
that they were going to " turn out " Mr. Pierpont, because " he 
had taken up this Temperance business, and undertaken to legis- 
late for them, and they were determined to oust him." Accord- 
ingly, at that meeting, Moses Williams, also a dealer, who had 
not been a worshipper here, nor even a resident in the city for 
many years, though a pew owner, prepared a set of votes, which 
he handed to Mr. Weld, another dealer, who, obviously, for the 
sake of appearance, employed Mr. Crane, who was not engaged 
in the traffic, to offer them to the meeting. This office, Mr. 
Crane performed, and the votes are before you ; and, as you ex- 
amine them, you will find that they complain of Mr. Pierpont, not 
for neglect of parochial duties, nor for pursuing mechanical con- 
trivances, nor for lecturing on phrenology, nor for want of 
purity, honesty or integrity, but "interfering with the established 
laws of the land," " the alteration of old and the adoption of new 
laws." Can any mind be at a loss to understand what is here in- 
tended — what new law is meant? 

A committee was raised upon the subject of these complaints, 
without opposition from any quarter, an explanation between them 
and Mr. Pierpont was had, and his reply of September 20, 
1838, which has been printed, was made, which satisfied both 
Mr. Crane, Mr. Hay, and others, and every thing seemed to 
promise peace on the part of all except the traffickers in ardent 
spirit; every one of whom, except one, resisted the conciliatory 
report which was then made by that committee and accepted by 
the parish. 

In the winter of 1838-9, the sermon on the "Moral Rule of 
Political Action " was preached, and gave offence to Mr. Crane, 
for seeming to dictate to him, as he thought, as to his duty as a 
legislator. He charged Mr. Pierpont with thereby violating the 
supposed pledge embraced in his letter of September, though 
others did not so regard it, nor was it so in fact; but he was at 
once received into the opposition to Mr. Pierpont, and in Feb- 
ruary of that year, two who were and one who had been a distil- 
ler, purchased three pews, for the manifest purpose of thereby 
commanding votes, since one of the purchasers never had been 
in any manner connected with this society, but was to all intents 
a stranger in this controversy. 
37 



290 



Things thus remained, so far as any open and visible action 
was concerned, until September, 1839. In the mean time, Mr. 
Pierpont had, for more than a year, forborne altogether from lec- 
turing on the subject of Temperance, or doing any thing which 
could offend the most sensitive of the dealers in ardent spirit. 
But not one of them had forgotten or forgiven his transgression. 
Nothing short of his abandoning his pulpit could satisfy them. 
His friend, Mr. Boyd, procured a meeting to be held of some of 
the leading opponents of Mr. Pierpont, with himself and some of 
his friends, to see what could be done in regard to these difficul- 
ties. 

Of the six now opposed to Mr. Pierpont, who were present on 
that occasion, four were or had been engaged in the traffic in 
spirits; while Mr. Smith, one of the remaining two, says he was 
"but a listener" there. Mr. Smith, though called on the other 
side, has, with that frankness and honesty with which he has 
throughout testified in this case, told us what took place at that 
meeting at Mr. Everett's. " They tried to persuade him to alter 
his course as to lecturing abroad on Temperance." Mr. Everett 
says, " it was proposed to guaranty his salary to him one year, 
if he would quit his pulpit;" and " it was understood that the sub- 
ject was to be brought up at the next meeting," which was in fact, 
to be the next day. 

The meeting at Mr. Everett's, did not result in any concilia- 
tion. Mr. Pierpont would neither pledge, nor sell himself; the 
wealth of all the distillers in Christendom could not buy him; and 
the next day the war was again openly declared against him. 

Mr. Fay made the first motion, but gave way to Mr. Weld, 
who, in the preamble and vote that he offered, alludes to the dis- 
cussion by Mr. Pierpont of " certain exciting topics." It is true 
they are not named, but no one can be at a loss to understand 
what topics were meant; and the action proposed was, that the 
connexion between him and his society, should be dissolved. 

His opponents were not willing that the subject of their difficul- 
ties should be referred to a council ; they thought they could re- 
move him by the mere force of numbers, and rejected the pro- 
posal for such a reference. This was at the meeting of the 14th 
October; but at the meeting of Nov. 11, 1839, the report of the 
Committee insisting upon the dismissal of Mr. Pierpont, was re- 
jected by a vote of 69 to 59, and the freedom of the pulpit was 
sustained by a vote of 67 to 5. 

What then was done ? Did the minority yield ? Was the prin- 
ciple now so strenuously contended for by Mr. Hay and others, 
carried out into practice ? So far from it, the money potver of the 
opposition was put in requisition in buying up votes, not in the 
form of men, but in that of pews — a thing more consonant to the 
usages of an English hustings, than of a Boston church of Chris- 
tians. And, as we shall see, this money power was all directed 
by the interests of the traffickers in ardent spirit. 



291 



Winsor Fay, a distiller, but not a worshipper, had acquired 
three pews, one in February, one in September, and one in Oc- 
tober. Jona. Minott, a stranger, and a distiller, had purchased 
one in February. Jabez Fisher, lately, but not then, a distiller, 
had purchased one at the same time. Daniel Weld, a dealer, had 
acquired one in September. And William C, a son of Winsor 
Fay, himself a distiller, had purchased two in October. But as 
these eight pews did not command a majority of the votes, after 
the November meeting and before that of March, 1840, a fund of 
between 1700 and 1800 dollars was raised by the Proprietors to 
purchase up pews, and eleven or twelve were bought in the name 
of John D. Weld, a son of Daniel, not a worshipper in this soci- 
ety, and himself a dealer in ardent spirit, and thereby the majori- 
ty of votes was secured to their interest. 

It is said, in answer to this, that the friends of Mr. Pierpont 
also purchased pews. If they did so, it was in self-defence, and, 
with one exception, only by those who occupied the pews that 
they purchased. No stranger bought in to aid the friends of the 
pastor. As we follow on in the history of this struggle, we find 
that the moment the opponents of the pastor have acquired 
strength sufficient to control the vote, they are again in action. 
In January 1840, a committee of a large number of the Proprie- 
tors, &c." propose to his friends " an amicable dissolution of the 
connexion between the society and Mr. Pierpont," — and here 
again four out of six of this committee were or had been interes- 
ted in the traffic. A reply was made to this proposal by one hun- 
dred and eighteen persons, whom forty-seven were p«w owners, in 
which they express a willingness to adopt measures " for restor- 
ing union and harmony, leaving the question as to the means of 
accomplishing that object, open to both parties." The idea of 
any proposition which should recognize the possibility of Mr. 
Pierpont's remaining their pastor, seems to have been repelled by 
his opponents, and in March, 1840, the Proprietors again met. — 
Daniel Weld, ever among the first to act, offers the vote " we no 
longer wish the services of John Pierpont," and it was carried 
by a majority of 12, there having been 56 in favor, 68 against, 
and one blank, making 125 in the whole. It ought, however, 
be remembered that there have been, throughout this controver- 
sy, " neutrals" as they have been called in the society, who have 
declined taking any part in it. 

These 125 votes were cast by 91 persons, 50 of whom were 
in favor of Mr. Pierpont and 41 against him, so that while count- 
ing by pews the majority was 12 against him, if persons only 
had been counted, there was a majority of 9 in his favor. Of 
the 50 who were in his favor, 44 were worshippers in the society, 
while of the 41 opposed to him, 31 only worshipped here, mak- 
ing in that mode of computation a majority of 13 worshippers 
in his favor. 



292 



Of the 10 non- worshipping proprietors, six, all of whom were 
engaged in the traffic, cast nineteen votes, which was seven more 
than the whole majority against him. 

Of the 41 opposed to him 19 were, or had been, dealers in ar- 
dent spirit, and in their own right carried 38 of the whole 68 
votes that were cast against him. 

Who will say in view of these facts that Temperance had 
nothing to do with the origin and progress of this difficulty ! — 
For what cause but this was a single one of the traffickers oppos- 
ed to Mr. Pierpont ? Some of them have been upon the stand, 
and what one of them has spoken of his own opposition on any 
other ground ? For what other cause could those Proprietors, 
who became such merely to control votes have been opposed to 
him ? 

Take away the votes of the six absentee traffickers who voted 
as Proprietors, and the majority would still have remained in fa- 
vor of a Free Pulpit. 

It will be remarked that I am not now discussing the propriety 
of these votes, or who shall govern — men or pews, — but they 
have been referred to, to show what the traffic in rum and tem- 
perance have had to do with the dissensions existing in Hollis- 
Street Society. 

It is not manly to attempt to evade or deny their agency, and 
it hardly seems too much to affirm that such would not have been 
the case in 1838, when the tide of public feeling seemed to be 
setting against the License Law and its advocates. 

Mr. Smith, like a bold and honest man, tells us frankly how it 
is. " The complaints that led to the measures of September, 
1838, were induced by those who sold ardent spirits." " I recol- 
lect no complaint at Mr. Everett's, against Mr. Pierpont, but his 
lecturing on temperance." Mr. Bradlee says the subject of tem- 
perance was discussed at Mr. Everett's, but he thinks it was not 
the only cause of difficulty among them. Mr. Weld says that 
" the first serious thing in the way of difficulty was at the annu- 
al meeting in 1838." Mr. Atkins has told us what he was dis- 
satisfied with was, his engaging in getting the " fifteen gallon 
law" made. It was undertaking " to legislate for us." He says, 
however, that was not the only cause of objection in his mind. 

And if we look at the charges before us, we shall find this very 
matter of temperance and the license law, in substance, if not in 
so many words, spread upon the record as " grounds of com- 
plaint." In fact, if we take away these, who does not see that 
there is not enough left to sustain an opposition for a single hour. 

We have chiefly confined our views to the evidence that has 
come in on the other side, and when we revert to what has been 
testified of by the witnesses in behalf of Mr. Pierpont, every po- 
sition that I have taken is confirmed. 

These witnesses all testify to their unqualified belief, that tern- 



293 



perance is the moving cause of these difficulties, and you have 
seen the opportunities they have had to form a correct judgment 
upon the subject. 

It is said the dealers deny this position. It is true they do 
now, when no man would have the hardihood to avow the agen- 
cy of such a cause. But we show where the dealers have always 
been found in this controversy, and against their professions the 
old homely adage may well apply, that " actions speak louder than 
words." Dr. White has told you of the influence which has been 
exerted in this matter by his kinsman, Mr. Moses Williams, and 
the records and other testimony show the same fact. And Dea. 
May has told you what he, of his own personal knowledge, knows 
upon the subject. 

Before, however, considering his testimony, it is proper to 
dwell for one minute upon the attempt which has been made to 
invalidate it. It was perceived, the very first day of the trial, 
that there was a determined purpose on the part of some of the 
witnesses, to crush not only Mr. Pierpont, but those who dared 
to stand by him as friends ; and so apparent was this in the at- 
tacks made upon Dea. May, who had not then been called in the 
case, that the Council very properly interferred and arrested the 
remarks of the witness. This spirit has been manifested through 
the whole trial, and now the attempt has been made to impeach 
him by the contradictory statements of Mr. Crane, Mr. Weld, 
and Mr. Smith. This must have grown out of a misapprehen- 
sion which it is not difficult to reconcile, and yet leave both par- 
ties free from the imputation of intentional misrepresentation. 

Mr. Crane has more than once stated that Deacon May in 
speaking to him of the sermon on the " Moral Rule of Political 
Action," said in substance, that the minister was a fool for preach- 
ing such a sermon ; and this Deacon May denies. Now it is to 
be regretted that so much of this case has had to rest upon the 
shoulders of Mr. Crane. He has told us how much of the pre- 
paratory labor has been done by him. He has shown how much 
feeling he has upon the subject ; he has been again and again up- 
on the stand whenever the occasion called for the aid of his testi- 
mony ; and now he has been called in to impeach and invalidate 
the testimony of a witness standing in this community like Dea. 
May. 

Unfortunately for Mr. Crane, it is not credible that Deacon 
May could have used the language ascribed to him. He was 
Mr. Pierpont 's friend, and there is nothing about that sermon, 
if he had not been, on which he could have predicated the charge 
of being a fool, upon its author. The sermon will not warrant 
such an idea for a moment. The truth was, Mr. Crane was very 
much excited ; he had a hasty conversation with Deacon Mav, in 
the street, and it is not strange that in recalling it, he conceived 
an erroneous impression as to what actually was said by himself, 



294 



and what by Deacon May, and confounded them in his mind. — 
He has shown how liable his judgment is to err on a subject upon 
which he feels so much, in the case of the pretended pledge of 
Mr. Pierpont, contained in his letter of September, 1838. He 
believed the pledge to be there; but when you sought for it, was 
not the search a vain one? And did not the friends of Mr. Pier- 
pont repel the idea of a pledge, the very time the letter was 
read? 

In regard to the contradiction of Mr. May, by Mr. Weld, it is 
by no means remarkable that he should not recollect the conver- 
sation spoken of. He was very active in this controversy, again 
and again, at Deacon May's counting room, conversing upon it, 
and was frequently conversing upon it elsewhere ; and it would 
not be strange if he had forgotten it. On the other hand, would 
Deacon May have gone into the street to inquire in regard to 
Mr. Homer, if he had not heard the statement of which he speaks, 
or would he have gone home to his own family and told them what 
was not true? And more than all that, the conduct of Mr. Weld 
has been shown to be perfectly consistent with what he stated to 
Deacon May in regard to his belief that Mr. Pierpont would be 
obliged to leave his society. 

The testimony of Deacon May in regard to the declarations of 
the dealers in ardent spirit, renders their agency in this matter, 
if any farther proof were needed, clear beyond contradiction. Moses 
Williams declared to him that he would not support a man who 
was trying to hurt his business. At the interview of the Com- 
mittee with Mr. Pierpont, in 1838, Mr. Howard, though not a 
dealer, in the presence of Mr. Child who had been, when point- 
ing out to Mr. Pierpont the consequences of his course, said, 
" these men are engaged in what they think an honorable busi- 
ness, and if he did not let them alone, they would not him." — 
Winsor Fay complained, even with profanity, of Mr. Pierpont, 
that he would not let their business alone, and Mr. Weld, after 
alluding to a rumor that Mr. Homer had been turned out of his 
society for meddling with temperance, insisted that Mr. Pierpont 
would be turned out of his, if he did not let it alone. 

And where do we find one dealer in ardent spirit that sustains 
Mr. Pierpont, or one temperance man who is opposed to him? — 
Is it not a fact proved in this case, that the moment one of his 
opponents joins in the temperance movements of the day, he is 
no longer found in the ranks of the opposition ? I will not deal 
in too strong terms, but I would ask my friend, the junior counsel 
on the other side, if this was a charge against these gentlemen 
for a conspiracy to injure and drive Mr. Pierpont from his pulpit, 
whether he, in his capacity as a prosecuting officer, if within his 
cognizance, could fail to convict them upon acts and declarations 
so numerous and so coincident as these? 

We come, then, to the great question in this case, — shall Mr. 



295 



Pierpont be expelled from his pulpit, for the interest he has tak- 
en in the cause of temperance ? 

What has he done ? He has not, for many years, preached it 
in his pulpit. He has lectured abroad, and on one occasion pre- 
pared a memorial to the Legislature. This seems to be the ex- 
tent of his offence, even on this subject. 

So far as the memorial is concerned, it is now before you, 
among these printed documents, and has it been pretended that 
the facts it refers to are not true, that its facts and its arguments 
are not morally and politically true ? And if they are, may not a 
minister, as a minister, and as a man, raise his voice against the 
traffic in alcohol? 

If inspiration is true, if the gates of heaven are closed against 
the drunkard, may not he whose care is for the souls of men, do 
any thing to arrest the power of this soul-destroyer? The voice 
of the people and the press through the land have answered this 
in regard to the very matter now before you. 

Do what the opponents of Mr. Pierpont may, the cause of tem- 
perance cannot be arrested. Galileo may be shut up in prison, 
but the earth will still move on its orbit. The distiller and the 
rumseller may shut the doors of the Hollis-Street Church against 
the light, but they cannot roll back the tide that is overwhelming 
their traffic. 

In this connexion Mr. Pierpont has been made the exponent of 
a great principle, and that is, the Freedom of the Pulpit. 

To which hereafter shall our clergy minister, the temporal and 
eternal well-being of the human race, or the cupidity, the arro- 
gance, the intolerance of wealth wrung, it may be, from suffer- 
ing wives and children, garnered up from the ruined fortunes of 
the miserable — the merchandise that beggars the soul of the buy- 
er, to build palaces and give power to the seller? 

May Father Mathew go through the land cheered with the 
prayer and blessings of Catholic millions, and the tongue of a 
Protestant minister, be silenced by a Protestant council, in the 
city of Boston, at the beck and bidding of the distiller and the 
rumseller? 

As far as arresting the progress of temperance is concerned, 
such a course would be futile. Temperance will triumph as cer- 
tainly as the Christian Religion, and the time will come when 
the poor man's bread will no longer be changed into the poor 
man's poison. 

Among the grounds of complaint upon which no small reliance 
seems to have been placed, is the manner in which Mr. Pierpont 
has carried on this very controversy. It is said to be " harsh, 
contemptuous, vindictive," <^c. 

Has any man before you ever intimated that Mr. Pierpont ever 
treated any one in private with a want of courtesy ? The evi- 
dence is all to the contrary. So far as his correspondence is 
concerned it has been shown that it was all submitted to and ap- 



296 



proved by his friends, before it was made public. And to whom 
else should a man, situate as Mr. Pierpont has been, go, or whose 
counsel take as his guide, if not his friends'? 

Has it been shown that he has ever written, or published, or 
said, what was untrue or unwarranted by facts? Tne attempt to 
do this in one particular has already been considered, and need 
not be alluded to again. 

The truth is, Mr. Pierpont was driven to the wall before he 
turned at all upon his pursuers, and then only in his own defence. 
Will it be contended before this Council, that a minister, because 
he is such, may be assailed with all the bitterness of malice, and 
yet be not permitted to defend his character, which to a clergy- 
man is his all ? 

If the charges against the respondent are true, they are enough 
not only to drive him from the pulpit, but from all decent society. 
Why then make the manner in which he defends himself against 
these charges, a substantive ground of offence? If they are 
true, this new ground is not needed. If they are false, what 
language can be too strong for an injured man to use? If the 
charges are groundless, is the man who has been suffering under 
ihis baseless calumny to be turned out of his pastoral office, 
for feeling like a man, and speaking like a husband and a father ? 

Go through the letters, and, bearing in mind the circumstances 
under which they were produced, judge ye if he was not justi-. 
tied in all that he has written. His first was the September let- 
ter of 1838, to which even his most captious enemy does not ob- 
ject. The next was written in September, 1839, and in it he 
claims that his pulpit should be free, that temperance is the cause 
of their difficulties, and suggests two courses, one of which 
might be taken to put an end to the dispute. The next is the one 
already referred to in which he had offered to submit the dispute 
t© a council. And the next is the one in which he replied to the 
Report of the Proprietors, which had already been published in 
the newspapers, holding him up to ridicule for having made stoves, 
and screws, and razor strops. The next letter in this correspon- 
dence, was written in answer to the vote of March, 1840 — declar- 
ing that the Proprietors no longer wish his services — and the last 
is of the date of November, 1840, and was written after the char- 
ges affecting his moral character had been spread on the record, 
and an attempt had been made to evade the trial of them by the 
substitution of new charges in their stead. 

These are the circumstances, in brief, under which these let- 
ters were written, and as to their matter, they speak for them- 
selves. They have been read through this wide land, and wherev- 
er they have gone, they have found a hearty response from a free 
press, and a generous minded public. This Council may con- 
demn Mr. Pierpont for having thus defended himself, but the let- 
ters will still be read, and the measures of the Hollis-Street 



297 



Proprietors will be remembered so long as beauty and strength of 
language, clearness of style, energy of thought, and a fearless 
avowal of honest and noble sentiments shall continue to find ad- 
mirers. 

As a last and crowning charge, in the manner in which it seems 
to have stood out in this trial, is the neglect on the part of Mr. 
Pierpont to conciliate his opposers, and thereby restore peace to 
his society. 

If there has been fault in this respect on either side, where 
does it lie? 

In order to settle this question, we must again go over some of 
these facts, and see how they bear upon this matter of conciliation. 

Every thing was harmonious till 1838, when a discontent arose 
on account of temperance. He yields to this, and from August, 

1838, to November, 1839, never makes a single lecture or ser- 
mon on the subject. Not only so, but when in September of 1838, 
a committee wait upon him in regard to the difficulties, he comes 
at once into their views, writes a letter which satisfies his strong- 
est opposers, and yet to a conciliatory report from that committee, 
every dealer in ardent spirit, except one, was opposed, and Mr. 
Crane says he was complained of by several, for what he did 
towards a reconciliation at that time. 

Whose was the spirit or the act of conciliation thus far? The 
same persons who, in September, 1838, resisted conciliation, in 

1839, make known their determination that he shall abandon his 
pulpit, and the only compromise they are willing to extend, is a 
year's salary if he will voluntarily resign — a sum of money for 
the abandonment of a principle! 

He refused to pledge himself, and the next day the vote was 
offered, that the connexion ought to be dissolved. On his part, Mr. 
Pierpont insisted that his pulpit should be free, but the dissolu- 
tion of the connexion is insisted upon by a vote of sixty-three to 
sixty. Soon after this, Mr. Pierpont, through Mr. Boyd, propo- 
ses to submit all these difficulties to a mutual Council, and this 
is met by a rejection on the part of the Proprietors' committee, 
and a holding him up to ridicule in the public newspapers. 

What more could have been done by the respondent ? The 
Proprietors would neither offer terms, nor accept them, and 
when they resorted to ridicule as a weapon, how otherwise could 
they be met, than by the same engine, the press? It was not a 
case for grave argument — he must either submit in silence, to 
his own and his friends' discomfiture, or reply in the only way in 
his power, by showing how ridiculous were the charges, and how 
unworthy they were of a serious reply. And it is not too much 
to conjecture, that one great cause of the deep feeling manifested 
by some of the Proprietors against Mr. Pierpont, may be traced 
to the fact, that the weapon they employed against him was found 
to have a keener edge in his hand, than what they had been able 
to give to it. 

38 



298 



So, if we trace through this whole controversy from 1838, to 
me present time, there has never been any proposition made or 
listened to, by the Proprietors, which recognized the possibility 
of Mr. Pierpont's remaining their Pastor. The only alternative 
left him was to go voluntarily, or go by force. In the view of 
this, and of the feelings which were openly manifested towards 
him by Moses Williams, Mr. Weld, and Mr. Fay, Mr. Pier- 
pont owed it to a proper sense of self-respect, to withhold any 
further advances, when he knew they would be rejected with 
indignity. 

But it is said he ought to have resigned, that he was obstinate, 
and that he should have sacrificed his own feelings to the peace 
of his society. All this he was ready and offered to do, but he 
was the minister of a whole people, and was as much bound to 
consult the wishes of one part, as of the other. He was ready 
to give up the difference between his salary, and that paid to Mr. 
Holly, since some had made objections to this, and the letter of 
resignation which he prepared in view of those difficulties, has 
been read before yon. The only reason why it was not offered 
at a regular meeting of the Proprietors, was the opposition of his 
friends, whose wishes he was bound to regard, and who assured 
him it would do no good, for, if offered, it would not be accept- 
ed. And the motives on the part of his friends for so doing, 
have already been explained to you, and are alike honorable to 
their foresight and their independence. They saw the spirit that 
was awakened on the part of the traffickers in alcohol, they saw 
their determination to silence or muzzle the pulpit, they saw that 
if success crowned these efforts in regard to the pulpit of Hollis 
Street, the other pulpits in Boston must follow in their turn, and 
they were willing to make a stand here in favor of a principle in 
which every Christian society in the country, was interested. 
And the vote of the November meeting, 1839, shew that in this 
sentiment a majority of this Society concurred. 

This, by the doctrine now contended for by the Proprietors, 
ought to have settled the question conclusively. Instead of that, 
however, instead of doing any thing to conciliate or admit of con- 
ciliation, the Proprietors renew their efforts to eject the pastor 
from his pulpit . Wealth is lavished for this purpose, strangers 
are brought in to decide by their votes, that the people of Hollis 
Street society shall not enjoy the ministrations of the man of their 
choice, until in this way the majority of the wooden partitions 
which constitute the pews was obtained against him, while the 
majority of souls continued and has ever remained in his favor. 

Concession there has been none, on the part of his opposers — 
witness after witness have declared that he would not come back 
into the Society, if Mr. P. remained. And must, nay, can the 
conciliation be all on one side ? His opponents admit that he 
has been honest and sincere in uttering his sentiments, and had 
he not been, he had only to hold his peace to insure him quiet. 



299 



And was the Pastor the only one to act in this business of allay- 
ing difficulties? 

If any door for conciliation had been left after the vote of 
March, 1840, it was effectually shut by the charges of April 6, 
in which the Proprietors declare his office forfeited, among other 
things, for indecency, dishonesty, and falsehood. 

You have seen on the other side, what Mr. Pierpont did, and 
what he forbore, for the sake of peace, and yet with all his 
efforts, unwearied as they were, in avoiding offensive topics, in 
visiting among his people, in courteous demeanor, and devoted 
attention, not one of the movers in this warfare were reconciled ; 
but on the contrary, at the first moment when they could act, 
they acted, to a man against him. And when has the time been 
since September, 1839, when, had he sought it ever so much 
Mr. Pierpont could have approached these men to conciliate 
them? Nothing, in short was left for him, but to defend himself, 
and his character before the world, by publishing the truth. 
And for publishing the truth, he is now to be condemned for 
neglecting his duty in not conciliating his people. Can the 
charge be sustained for a moment ? 

We have now gone through with these charges, and the inter- 
esting question remains, in view of all the case, what shall this 
Council do? Their course seems to me to be plain. The line is 
drawn which is to guide them, as well in their investigations, as 
their result. If they remove Mr. Pierpont at all, it must be by 
determining that the " grounds of complaint " are the reasons for 
dissolving his connexion." And this position is the more confi- 
dently urged, because in looking into the correspondence in this 
case, it will appear that eight out of the twelve churches here 
assembled, at a former ineffectual meeting in Council, so under- 
stood the limits of their duty. 

It was on this ground that the generous proffer of this Coun- 
cil to act in this case was accepted, and any essential departure 
from it, might throw suspicious opon the honorable motives 
which dictated such a proffer. 

If the " grounds " are not true, there is nothing more for this 
Council to do. If any part of them are true, is it such as ought 
to result in a dissolution of the connexion between Mr. Pierpont 
and his Society, or merely in advising them how these difficul- 
ties can best be healed? 

The legal rights of the respondent are in every respect as valid 
as those of the disaffected who would deprive him of them. This 
Council, or any court, have no more right to release one party 
from the obligation of their contract, on the plea of expediency, 
or the general notion of propriety, than to impose a double bur- 
den upon the other party. They can no more release the Pro- 
proprietors on such a ground from paying the salary due to Mr. 
Pierpont, than to compel them to pay a double salary, or absolve 
him from the performance of all duty in his office. 



300 



There has been, through the whole of this trial, an apparent 
disposition on the part of the Proprietors, to escape from the real 
questions between the parties, and rest upon certain general con- 
siderations of probable or possible expediency, as a rule by which 
the Council should be guided. Upon such a ground, if the ex- 
istence of difficulties is to be the evidence by which it is sus- 
tained, no ministry could ever be safe. Let some rich and in- 
fluential member of a society make up his mind, from any cause, 
to displace its pastor, and all that he has to do is to create and 
foment dissensions there, and then, make the existence of these 
the cause of sacrificing the innocent party. 

The question of expediency not only is one which has not 
been submitted by the agreement of these parties, but there 
are third parties interested in its decision, who are not and cannot 
be heard here, and that is, those who worship in this house. — 
To them it is a question of deep moment, whether their Pastor 
shall be displaced, and if this is to depend upon the probable 
balance of good or evil which may result from such a measure, 
surely, before their rights and interests shall be sacrificed, they 
ought to be heard. 

But the respondent, so far as he is concerned, would not shrink 
for a moment from meeting his opposers, even on this ground, if 
it was open to them. 

In considering this part of the subject, something more than the 
mere counting of pews and reading of title-deeds is to be regarded. 
The mockery of such a proceeding did not require the calling of a 
Council. And the conclusion to which I have come, from the 
whole evidence in the case, is, that if Mr Pierpont remains, the so- 
ciety will flourish again — if he is removed, it will be broken up and 
destroyed. 

If he remains, who that is now here will go away ? Deacon 
Bass says he thinks some would do so, but he does not put the 
number higher than from seven to ten. But who has told you that 
he himself would go ? 

So far as there is any evidence on this subject unfavorable to 
this view of the case, it has come from the opinions of those whose 
judgments are in no slight degree formed from their own wishes 
and feelings. 

On the other side, we have the opinions of friends sustained by 
facts, as well as the general fact that so large a proportion of the 
whole society have adhered to their Pastor through all these 
troubles. 

If Mr Pierpont is removed, who will return ? Mr Crane has fur- 
nished a list of those who, within fifteen years, have been dissatis- 
fied and left, or are dead. And although in this number important 
errors have been discovered, it is not meant to impeach the honesty 
of his belief when he prepared that list. But most of those now 
alive must have connected themselves with other societies, have 
their associations there, and can have no inducement to return here. 



301 



Such as have recently left might return ; but, at best, their number 
must be few. 

If Mr Pierpont is turned away for having dared to preach the 
truth, is there a doubt that those who love to hear that truth, and to 
maintain the right to have it preached, will never consent to sit 
down under such a ministration and such rules as alone would meet 
the views of his opponents ? 

Much has been said of " old stand-bys," and an attempt has been 
made to awaken a sympathy for such. But in determining a ques- 
tion like the one before you, is there any difference to be attached 
to an equally respectable citizen, whether he has been a worship- 
per here for five or twenty five years ? Besides with what grace 
can this consideration be urged by those who themselves have 
brought in strangers and a money power to over-ride the rights of 
those who are actually the " old stand-bys" in this society ? 

Can you hope to restore peace or build up this society into 
strength again, by driving away the present worshippers and de- 
nouncing the principle they have been contending for ? 

What in fact is the real condition of this society now ? There 
has been a great misapprehension in the public mind on this point, 
which ought to be corrected. It has been represented that Mr 
Pierpont stood against his society, intrenched within technical rules, 
and regardless of their wishes, when, in fact, he has only stood by 
his society, relying upon their aid and contending only for the 
cause of Truth. 

Although the number of present worshippers ought not to be re- 
garded as a fair test, when we find that those who own the pews 
and do not occupy them themselves, have, in some instances, been 
unwilling to suffer others to occupy them, yet is it not true that more 
worshippers have been added since these troubles began, than have 
been lost to the society ? Is there any question that the same min- 
ister and the same style of preaching, which, under such adverse 
circumstances, have retained and added so many worshippers, 
would attract still more, if peace could once be restored ? Deacon 
Bass has told us that there is not a society in Boston where the 
friends of the pastor are more strongly attached to him than are 
the friends of Mr Pierpont at this very moment. And who do the 
papers and the testimony before us show are these friends ? The 
printed, document of January, 1840, replying to the communication 
of his opponents, is signed by one hundred and eighteen names, 
representing fiftyone pews. 

The number of worshippers now, as stated by Mr F. Jackson, 
J. J. May, and others, is one hundred and thirtyone male adults, 
who own or occupy pews, and nine females who are pew proprie- 
tors. 

The Church has, from the beginning, increased as rapidly under 
Mr Pierpont's ministration, as under that of his predecessors ; and 
during seven months of the present year, the number added to this 



302 



body is more than double the average increase of former entire ' 
years. And of these, out of a little over seventy, more than sixty 
are known to be in favor fof retaining Mr Pierpont. (Here Mr 
Rand suggested that sixteen only of these were males.) Is that a 
consideration to urge upon this Council ? Are the female members 
of this church to be wholly disregarded because they cannot vote ? 
Do you not admit them in solemn covenant to your communion, as 
members of the visible church, and hold them in the interesting re- 
lation that binds that body together ? And are we to be told that 
they have no interest in the question whether their pastor is to be 
torn from them, because their husbands or brothers hold the deeds 
of the pews they occupy ? It is a doctrine that partakes more of 
the narrow technicalities of a close corporation, than the expanded 
charities of the Christian religion. 

When we inquire as to the Sabbath School, to whose interest Mr 
Pierpont has devoted so much time and attention, we find its teach- 
ers all in favor of his being retained, and expressing their belief 
that his removal will be fatal to its prosperity. 

Whatever else may be said of the friends of Mr Pierpont in this 
society, they not only are able but willing to support him, as they 
have done, without a dollar being paid as a tax on these pews, for 
the last year or two. And can you doubt they will still do so, if 
this difficulty should be settled ? 

In the one case then, you have a society of one hundred and 
forty worshippers, at least, a church and a Sabbath School — in the 
other, less than fifty, Mr Jackson says not exceeding thirty, in the 
whole, and with scarcely a nucleus of a church. 

Can you hope, even if Mr Pierpont were now removed, that this 
society could unite in the settlement of a new minister, divided as 
its members are, upon the very principle on which he should be 
settled. The principle on which they divide is so prominent that 
you are almost imperatively called on to say which side in this con- 
troversy you will sustain. When the friends of Mr Pierpont pre- 
vailed in November, 1839, they resolved to sustain the principle of 
entire freedom and independence of the pulpit, and for this they 
have uniformly contended. But the first vote of the opponents, 
when they obtained the majority, in March, 1840, was to rescind 
the resolution of November. And this difference seems to have 
marked the opinions and feelings of more than one of the witnesses 
on the one side and the other, as they have testified before you. 

But the strong argument which has been urged in answer to all 
that has been said in behalf of the respondent is, that the majority 
of the Proprietors are opposed to him. If this is so, it is because 
wealth has been lavished here to buy up and control this pulpit — a 
precedent more dangerous than can be found in the history of the 
churches of New England. If Mr Hay's doctrine — " the great 
principle," as he says, for which they are contending, — is to be 
sanctioned by this Council and our courts, that a minister," though 



303 



pure as an angel of light," shall yield up his pulpit whenever a 
majority of the pew-holders demand it, then the followers of Abner 
Kneeland may buy up one more than half the pews in number in 
the Federal-Street Church, and he may utter his doctrines there in 
triumph. 

The wealth of the opposition pew-holders is not needed to sus- 
tain this society. The present worshippers only ask that you will 
not interfere in favor of those who, in making war against their pas- 
tor, are warring alike against them and the freedom of their pulpit. 

Leave, then, the respondent as you found him, except to declare 
him innocent, as it seems to me you must, of every charge that has 
been brought against him, and the consequences are plain — his 
friends will adhere to him, many opposed will remain and unite 
with them. The society will increase from the present rapid 
growth of this part of the city, as well as from other causes, and in 
three years' time I may venture to affirm, Hollis-Street Church 
will again be filled with a contented, peaceful and prosperous con- 
gregation. 

On the contrary, turn out Mr Pierpont from this pulpit — let the 
money power ride over the consciences of those who worship here, 
and the society is broken down, Hollis-Street pulpit is silent or 
worse than silent for ever, and the cause of religion and civil liber- 
ty is deeply wounded in the very house of its friends. 

The determination of this cause involves momentous consequen- 
ces to the respondent, to the cause of civil liberty, and of religion. 

Can the respondent go out into the world at his period of life, 
with an unblemished reputation, if he goes forth with the censure 
of his brethren upon him ? He has toiled long and arduously for 
usefulness and for character, and the struggle now is to deprive 
him of both. Will you permit him to leave to his children the rich 
inheritance of a good name, or send him away, poor as he is in 
this world's goods, with a ruined reputation ? 

To the cause of civil liberty, the decision of this case is even 
more important. A free pulpit is scarcely less essential than a 
free press. Where a pulpit is free, a people cannot be slaves. It 
was the pulpit more than the press that kept alive the spirit which, 
in the days of our Revolution, secured their freedom to our fathers. 
And even foreigners have remarked with admiration the connexion 
there is between our religious institutions and the prevalence of free 
principles in our land. 

You know that the law no longer sustains the pulpit by any coer- 
cive aid. It must stand, if it stands at all, by its own merits and 
the assured confidence in the public mind, that it is free and un- 
trammelled. Better a thousand times have the bigotry of an hie- 
rarchy to control the pulpit than the capricious tyranny of a self- 
constituted censorship, whose only claim to confidence is the ingots 
and pride of those who hold the rod of power. 

If wealth is to be the dominant power over the pulpit, and he is 



304 



to be subjected to ignominy who dares to lift the veil that covers sin, 
because it is the sin of the rich, it would be better that every church 
door was closed, and every watchman forever silent beside his altar. 

While the whole of Christendom is instinct with life in the cause 
of benevolence, shall it be said that the independent churches of 
New England are shut against it ? Shall it be said that here, in 
Boston, where more than two hundred years ago, there were minds 
which dared to break through the lines within which intolerance 
and the law hedged them in, and to think and speak in the freedom 
which God had given them, the ministers of his religion are willing 
to bow to the shrine of mammon, or hold their peace to court the 
favor of any class of men ? You will answer no, for where the 
proposition stands in its true light no other answer can be given. 

Let religion, then, be what its author designed it should be, a 
light to our path and a guide to our feet through this world of temp- 
tation to immortal life beyond the grave, and let its ministers boldly 
proclaim its councils, "whether men will hear or whether they will 
forbear," and it will rise above every obstacle which self-interest or 
human passions may throw in its way. 

But if none but such opinions as suit the leaders in a community 
may be preached, if the vicious propensities, the debased appe- 
tites, the wicked passions, of men may not be attacked from the 
pulpit, from a fear of excitement, preaching becomes but a siren's 
song to lull men to sleep, while eternity, with all its dread realities, 
is waiting to receive them. 

Once and again has this edifice been in peril from the fires of 
heaven. But the same Providence that directed the lightning's bolt 
preserved it from destruction. Once and again have the fires of 
discord been lighted here to destroy the visible, the living church, 
which God has gathered here ; and we look to the same protect- 
ing Providence to quench these fires, and yet to spare the flock 
that come around this altar. In your hands is its shepherd, and on 
your decision rests the issue whether this flock shall be scattered, 
or be suffered again to follow the familiar, the loved voice of the 
pastor of their choice. 

In the name, then, of justice to an injured man, in the name of 
civil liberty, in the name of that holy religion which you profess, I 
ask, I entreat of you, that you acquit my client of these charges, 
and that you restore him back to his church and his people. 

By doing this you will restore peace, by showing to his persecu- 
tors that the pulpit is not to be made subservient to any man's self- 
interest, or to be silent in the cause of religion and humanity. 

In this result the generous minded, and magnanimous among his 
opposers, and there are many such, will acquiesce, and when this 
excitement shall have subsided, will bless you for the fearless dis- 
charge of your duty, and their children's children will reap the re- 
wards of your faithfulness in maintaining the cause that is now 
committed to your charge. 

If there are any whose feelings have become so imbittered that 
they cannot again come to this sanctuary, will you leave them to 



305 



find a congenial place of worship, or will you sacrifice to their 
feelings the hopes, the wishes, the happiness, of those who now 
worship here ? 

Which interest shall prevail, which be the most regarded, the 
souls of this flock, or the money-power of those who hold a parch- 
ment title to the bricks, and mortar, and timbers of a house into 
which some of these proprietors rarely, and some never enter. 

Weigh well the consequences of your result. You may dismiss 
the respondent — you may yield to the clamor that has been raised 
against him, and give his enemies a triumph. You may send him 
into the world a censured — a disgraced minister, and it may be of 
comparatively little consequence. The circle of friends who may 
feel his disgrace may be comparatively small. At the utmost, his 
heart cannot be stung with mortification and sorrow but a few years, 
before its throbbings will be hushed in that sleep which no enemy 
can disturb, and his children alone may then feel the blush of 
shame tingle on their cheek, when the connexion of their father 
and this church shall be recalled. 

But these are all sufferings and consequences of a day , and if 
your result stopped here, it would, so far as the affairs of this great 
world are concerned, be of but little moment. 

But it cannot stop there. The issue of this trial will be felt when 
you and all of us shall have been gathered to our fathers, and our 
names shall be moss-grown on our tombstones. Tf the purity, the 
independence, the freedom of the pulpit is sacrificed here, if the 
altar is to minister only to the caprices of power and of passion, if 
the thoughts, the souls of pastor and people are to be chained down 
and circumscribed by the will of a few, nothing but revolution such 
as Luther wrought out in the old world, can restore back the 
churches of New England to their primitive purity and lustre. 

The eyes of thousands whom you may never known, are upon 
you in this decision. They feel that the cause of the respondent is 
their own cause, is the cause of humanity, of civil and religious 
liberty. The press throughout the country has spoken out the 
feeling of every liberal, unbiased mind, a feeling of generous in- 
dignation, that in the nineteenth century, an attempt should be 
made to silence the pulpit, and hedge it in with the terrors of a 
monied power. 

See to it, that your result shall be such as you yourselves shall 
approve, when you look back upon this scene from the calm re- 
treat of your own thoughts, when this trial and its consequences 
shall have become history. 

See to it that when you render up your account of this, as of 
your other deeds done in the body, unto the great Head of the 
Church, it shall be with joy and not with grief, because, regardless 
of the fear of man, and with pure consciences, you shall have done 
your duty as men, as Christians, and as the ambassadors of the 
Most High. 



MR RAND'S CLOSING ARGUMENT FOR THE 
PROPRIETORS. 



Thursday, July 22. 
Mr Rand said he had not proposed to himself to make a decla- 
matory, and much less an impassioned speech to the audience 
assembled here, as if the object on this occasion was to appeal to 
their feelings, rather than to address the understandings of the 
Council. 

I have come here, said he, Mr Moderator, and Gentlemen, to 
address you in a plain and unimpassioned manner on a very serious 
subject, in which you are to exercise your sound judgment, divested 
as far as may be of all bias, feeling and prejudice and guided by 
the light which reason and argumentation can afford. 

I have not supposed that it would be proper for me, nor respect- 
ful to you or becoming the occasion, to depart from the strict line 
of argument upon the grounds on which you are called to decide in 
the important matter before you as an Ecclesiastical Council, or to 
introduce matters of popular controversy or excitement irrevelant 
to this case. I shall not therefore, fashion my speech as if I were 
addressing, not you, but a promiscuous multitude of persons unac- 
customed to the mental discipline necessary for close and accurate 
investigation, and not in a condition to reflect calmly and act de- 
liberately, but liable to be carried away by eloquent appeals to 
prejudice or passion, regardless of the substantial merits of the 
question and the just rights of the parties. 

I have considered that 1 was called upon to address a Body not 
only respectable, but venerable for learning, integrity, candor and 
piety, and therefore eminently qualified to divest their minds of 
every improper influence, and bend their judgments, with strict 
impartiality and clear intelligence, to the solemn question before 
them ; and I trust that I have not mistaken the course whcih I 
ought to have pursued. 

Allow me, Mr Moderator, before entering upon the merits of the 
case, to say that both parties cannot but feel under great obligation 
to this Council for the time, the attention, the patience, the candor 



307 



and the great labor they have bestowed on the subject, of this inter- 
esting controversy. The importance of the case, indeed, not only 
in its relation to temporal affairs, but to the spiritual welfare of this 
Society and the interests of Christianity, rises far above any question 
however important of mere pecuniary interest in the Courts of civil 
Judicature. 

For this reason, and from the nature of the trial, much more 
time unavoidably has been already spent in it than is usually con- 
sumed in the most important causes in Courts of Justice. 

And in behalf of the Committee and the Proprietors I cordially 
unite with the learned counsel on the other side in tendering you 
their thanks for your disinterested and earnest attention to the dis- 
charge of the responsible duty that has devolved upon you, and 
for the long enduring patience, the calmness and candor you have 
exhibited in the hearing and in your deliberations. 

When it is considered that this is entirely voluntary on your part, 
and that for it you can receive no remuneration, other than the 
satisfaction, which you will have in discharging faithfully the duties 
of the office you have undertaken, it cannot be doubted that in 
convening on this occasion you have been actuated solely by a 
sincere desire in the spirit of enlightened Christianity, to put an 
end to this unhappy controversy and to promote the welfare of 
the parties and the best ends of religion and morality in the 
Churches. 

And now after this long and severe devotion to this high duty, 
which you have taken upon yourselves to perform, it must be some 
relief to you to see that your labors are drawing to a close, and to 
find, as I trust you will, that they have not been altogether in 
vain. 

It can hardly be necessary to remind you that in order to 
arrive at a just result it will be necessary to keep in view the nature 
and character of your office, the parties by whom you have been 
convened, and the purpose for which you have been invited to 
meet. 

By the agreement of the parties, you are constituted a Mutual 
Ecclesiastical Council for this hearing, to act upon the matters 
before you, in the same way and manner as if letters missive had 
been issued in the ordinary mode of calling such an Ecclesiastical 
Council, without limitation or restriction. In other words, from an 
ex-par te Council, as which you were by letters missive at first con- 
vened, you are now by mutual consent of parties converted into a 
mutual council. 

You have now, therefore, the authority to exercise all the powers 
which you might have done if convened by Letters Missive in the 
general and usual form, in consequence of the grounds and reasons 
of complaint now submitted to you, and the object of your conven- 
tion and your duties are precisely the same as they would have 
been if you had been so convened. 



308 



But as this agreement as to your powers and duties, and the con- 
struction of the agreement for the submission between the parties, 
has been fully considered in a former stage of your proceedings, I 
shall not go farther into it now. 

This Mr Moderator, and gentlemen, is the office you have under- 
taken and this is the extent of your power and duties. The parties 
before you are the learned Pastor on one side, and the Proprietors 
of pews in Hollis Street Meeting House, a legal corporation estab- 
lished by a special act of the legislature, on the other. The act of 
incorporation was procured to be passed about the time when this 
house was erected, and was obtained for the sole purpose of 
incorporating this religious society as a parish in conformity to its 
provisions. 

It constitutes the Proprietors of pews alone and no others, as you 
will see by reference to it, the members of the religious society or 
parish which it establishes. They alone have the power to choose 
and settle their Minister, to contract with him, to raise monies for 
the support of religious worship, and to manage the concerns of 
the Parish. They alone are liable to taxation for the support of 
their pastor and for parish expenses. And they alone, have in fact, 
made the very contract with him, which is before you, to be dis- 
solved or not as your result, may, in its legal consequences deter- 
mine. No other parties can on this occasion rightfully be heard or 
considered in the matters before you or in arriving at your result, 
but the Pastor and the legal Parish, thus established. 

The contract by which the privity between the parties is created, 
according to the construction given in like cases, by the civil courts, 
is for life, liable to be dissolved for certain reasons : and this con- 
tract, which the parish declare to be forfeited and which the learned 
Pastor claims to enforce here before you, and by virtue of 
which he claims to be the Pastor of the Society and as such to be 
entitled to his salary he has made with this Corporation, who alone 
were bound by it, to him, and no others therefore have any legal 
right, liability or interest in the matter. 

From these two parties you derive all the power you possess as 
an Ecclesiastical Council. The Proprietors are the party who have 
acted in the matter, of the complaints now under consideration. 
They made the application for your intervention between them 
and their Pastor. They have called you together. They have 
agreed with their Pastor to submit to your decision. And these two 
parties, for the purposes specified in their agreement, and no others, 
have constituted you a Mutual Council, to determine their differ- 
ences so far as the highest civil tribunal in the State, can give 
effect to your doings. 

The purpose for which you have been convened is to hear and 
consider the complaints made by the proprietors, or incorporated 
parish, against their Pastor, and the difficulties existing between 
them, and to determine, whether upon the whole and under all the 



309 



circumstances, the contract, or pastoral relation, between this 
parish and their minister ought any longer to be insisted upon or 
enforced. 

It is therefore, of no importance what others may wish or want. 
The question is what does the spiritual weifare of this Parish, this 
people thus incorporated require ; not what does the interests of 
other persons or parties or causes seem to require. 

For the purposes of this investigation you must put all other 
interests out of view and look entirely to the interests and welfare 
of these parties, and thereupon come to a result as to what it is 
most expedient to do, — and whether, looking to the relations be- 
tween these parties it is on the whole expedient that the contract 
should be at an end, or should continue longer to subsist. 

That I repeat is the important question, and I have made this 
suggestion, Mr Moderator, and gentlemen, lest, by the course of 
the argument on the other side, your minds might be diverted from 
the real parties and the real question before you to other parties, 
sects and interests, and other questions, which have in fact ob- 
truded or been foisted into this controversy, but which have no 
legal or just connexion with it — interests which we all might feel 
disposed to see promoted in some reasonable and proper way, but 
which are not, or at least ought not, to be at all connected with the 
question of general expediency whether the connexion between the 
Pastor and the Parish, ought or not to be now dissolved. 

When I speak of the Parish I would have it distinctly understood 
that I do not intend to include any who worship in Hollis Street 
Meeting House but do not own any pew there. Others besides the 
proprietors of pews may worship there transiently or permanently, 
but they are not and cannot be considered as members of the 
parish, and they have no legal interest and no voice in making, en- 
forcing or dissolving the contract with the Minister. Although it 
be otherwise in the case of a territorial parish, in this case the 
proprietors of pews alone are by virtue of their act of incorporation 
the only legal parish. And the Supreme Court of this Common- 
wealth have long ago decided that the legal parish alone can settle 
or take the necessary proceedings to dismiss, the minister. 

This was determined by that Court in the cases of Burr vs. 
Sandwich and Baker vs. Fales. The question was whether the 
Church should have a voice in the matter. The learned Judges 
who gave the opinion of the Court in those cases demonstrated by 
the most conclusive reasons that the Parish alone is the party to 
be regarded. The question in the latter case arose on the ordination 
of a minister, and in the former upon the dismission of a minister. 
In this regard the question now before you is precisely the same. 

The doctrine settled in those cases must govern this and all like 
cases, and this Council of course will feel themselves bound 
by it. 



310 



I dwell longer upon this subject, and take pains to present my 
propositions in various forms, in order that the matter may be fully 
understood, since not only the learned counsel for the Pastor, but 
some members of this Ecclesiastical Council, seem to me to be 
laboring under mistake in regard to the question who are the parties 
whose voice and interests are on this occasion entitled to their 
consideration. 

The learned counsel on the other side, by his remarks, led 
me to suppose he meant to intimate that the doctrine contained in 
the decisions just mentioned, did not apply to this case. I under- 
stood him to say that it was not the legal Parish, the Corporation 
alone, in this case, who were legally concerned in the settlement or 
dismission. But if I rightly understood him, he entirely mistakes 
in his view of the case. I undertake to say that if that question 
were raised in the Supreme Court in this Commonwealth, so conclu- 
sively has it been settled, that no argument would be heard upon it. 

The learned counsel for the Pastor seems to think that title deeds 
have but little or nothing to do with the case and asks, if this be so, 
why we go through this formality of calling a council ? why not 
dismiss the Minister at once by the vote of the Parish and send him 
from the pulpit ? But how does this parish differ from many others 
excepting that in this case the members are ascertained by title 
deeds ; and that in other cases they are ascertained by residence 
within certain territorial limits ? And how can the parish safely 
proceed to dismiss their Pastor in this case without your interven- 
tion ? 

It is not in the power of the Parish by their vote, in all cases, to 
put an end to the contract. There are cases where such a vote 
may very properly be passed, but it is only a step to be taken in or- 
der to bring the question before the proper tribunal for decision. 

There are also many cases in which the intervention of an 
Ecclesiastical Council is as requisite as the verdict of a jury, on 
the facts in a civil case. And the grounds of complaint we here 
allege are many of them of that description, such as imprudence, 
folly, indiscretion, want of delicacy and decorum, want of a 
christian temper, unchristianly demeanor and the like. These it 
is the peculiar province of an Ecclesiastical Council to examine 
and try in order to determine whether the conduct of the Pastor is 
such as a Minister of the Gospel ought to sustain, who stands in 
this sacred office, as it were between his people and their God. 
For who knows better than Ministers of the Gospel themselves, 
must or ought to know, what belongs to the character of a Christian 
Minister, how that character ought to be maintained, and how pure 
and unspotted of the world even in the eyes of the world it ought to 
be kept to render such a minister useful to his people. 

The true question here, then, is whether in view of all the facts 
and circumstances it is right or expedient in your judgment that the 
relation between the Pastor and the Parish should any longer 
continue. 



311 



The learned counsel for the Pastor, however, undertakes to say 
that this is not the question for you to decide, but that it is to be 
confined strictly to the issue whether the written grounds of 
complaint of July 27, now before you are true ? And if true, 
whether they be sufficient to warrant a dissolution of the pastoral 
relation ? 

Perhaps it may not be necessary here, to contend for the more 
general ground which is certainly not broader than authority war- 
rants ; because the complaints and specifications filed are probably 
quite sufficient to embrace the whole matter upon which it may be 
important now to insist. For if you entertain doubt as to the truth 
of the graver charges seriously affecting the moral character of the 
Pastor or find one or more of them not sufficiently sustained , or 
even none of them fully proved, yet, if you find in the Pastor a 
want of kindness, prudence and discretion, or a want of that con- 
duct and character becoming a christian minister which has led to 
a general dissatisfaction in the society, or in any way has destroyed 
his usefulness as their Pastor, you will be justified in saying, and 
it is not only your province but your duty to decide, that the con- 
nexion between him and the Parish should no longer remain. 

But I maintain that, if the evidence touching his moral character 
produces grave suspicions in your minds, or if in view, of the dis- 
satisfaction which exists, and of all the interests of the Pastor and 
the Society and their spiritual welfare, aside from any such proof, 
on the general ground of expediency, you think such ought to be 
the result, you have a right and it is your duty to say that the con- 
tract between the parties ought to be dissolved. 

In coming to your result upon this question, you will act upon 
the principles and pursue the course which established usage in 
such cases has prescribed. You will proceed on this broad ground 
and not trouble yourself with the distinctions and refinements of 
the law. 

In regard to the mode of proof and in weighing the evidence, 
therefore, you will have no occasion for the nice and artificial rules 
adopted by our Courts of Judicature. 

You are not supposed, indeed, or required to have a knowledge 
of these technical rules of the courts of law, for you are not bound 
by and cannot safely follow them. You will of course, rather 
adopt those modes of proof, accept the kind of evidence and fol- 
low those rules in your deliberation, and in coming to your result, 
which seem to you most agreeable to sound sense, the precepts of 
the christian religion, and well established usages in like cases. 
Upon these principles you will enquire in your own way what under 
all the circumstances ought to be the result. 

You will always, therefore, while trying this case, bear it in mind 
that you do not sit here, like an ordinary court of civil or criminal 
judicature to try merely a question of right or wrong, guilt or inno- 
cence, solely with a view either to damages in one case or an 



312 



acquittal or a conviction in the other ; or to determine merely with 
the strictness and precision of such a legal tribunal whether all the 
matters put in issue are true or untrue, and nothing more; but 
whether under all the circumstances depending either upon facts 
established to your satisfaction by any mode of proof you may 
have thought proper to adopt, or upon grave suspicions, there is 
reasonable ground to advise a dissolution of the pastoral relation 
between the Pastor and his society. And this is the extent to 
which you are authorized and required to go in arriving at your 
result. 

It has not been without regret and reluctance, that the society 
have been constrained to make these complaints and charges pub- 
licly against their Pastor. They were found to be in their opinion, 
indispensable, as a preliminary step toward a final settlement of the 
controversy between the Society and their Pastor. It was only by 
an appeal to you as an ecclesiastical body, as they were at last .in- 
duced to believe, that these differences between the Parish and their 
Pastor could be put in a proper train to be finally and definitely 
settled. 

It is indeed a matter of much regret on the part of the society 
that their difficulties with their Pastor could not be removed without 
troubling other religious societies with their grievances. It is a 
painful office for you to undertake, but I think you must be already 
satisfied from the investigation which has been had, that it is pre- 
cisely such a tribunal as this, that can and should put an end to this 
whole controversy which has at length become a public scandal. 

This scandal and these difficulties, as we believe, have grown 
out of the imprudent conduct, gross neglect, and unchristianly and 
improper acts of the learned Pastor. 

When their present Pastor was ordained over this Parish, this 
house was filled with worshippers and great harmony and unanimity 
prevailed in the Society. So as you have been informed, it had 
uniformly been, under the ministry of the excellent Mr West and 
the eloquent Dr Holley, his immediate predecessors. 

The uniformly good character which this society has sustained 
in times past, is prima facie evidence that the present difficulties 
did not originate in any blameable conduct on their part. 

They have never been a quarrelsome, or unreasonable, or an 
irreligious people. They have always been a liberal, confiding, 
and generous people, toward their pastors. After the departure of 
their distinguished teacher, Dr Holley to the West, they congratu- 
lated themselves upon their engagement with their present Pastor 
as being in their opinion, a man of talent, learning, eloquence and 
eminent qualifications for the station to which he had been called, 
and they were ready to receive him with frankness, liberality and 
personal kindness. 

They expected that these talents would be chiefly devoted to the 
objects of the Parish as a religious society, and to the faithful dis- 



313 



charge of the duties of the pastoral office. And had they not a 
right to expect this as being enjoined by the obligations arising from 
their contract, and in the solemn ceremony of his ordination ? 
Had they not a right to claim the labors and services of their Min- 
ister, for which they were willing and had contracted to allow a 
liberal salary and reward, and to expect from him the devotion of 
his powers and energies to these duties, rather than to extraneous 
matters, however popular or exciting, which do not appertain to the 
ordinary and accustomed pursuits of ministers of the gospel ? 

They did expect this. And it is for you to say whether the ex- 
pectation was not reasonable. They were at first, much pleased 
with, and attached to their Pastor, and anxious in every way to pro- 
mote his welfare. They gave him a larger salary than they had 
ever given to any of their former religious teachers, not excepting 
the distinguished and very learned Dr Holley. 

Acts of liberality and kindness without number, from time to 
time, in the generosity of their spirit, were freely bestowed upon 
him, and of which he himself now admits, that he entertains a grate- 
ful recollection. When he became involved in pecuniary embar- 
rassments, growing out of secular employments, (these very trans- 
actions of a secular character, having no immediate relation to his 
clerical duties, and being entirely distinct from the services to 
which he had contracted to devote himself,) the Society generous- 
ly came forward and contributed to his relief, that his mind might 
be free, and his ministry unincumbered by worldly concerns. 

Complaints had come from him that his mind was disturbed, and 
his duties engrossed by these pecuniary troubles, and the Society 
no sooner learned, than they relieved his embarrassments and ne- 
cessities, though caused by transactions aside and remote from 
his relations to his people. There was no reluctance to afford him 
all the aid required, no unreasonable exactions of his time or labors ; 
no disposition to intermeddle with any of his literary or other pursuits 
that did not interfere, improperly, with the interests and harmony of 
the Society, and the discharge of the duties that belonged to his 
sacred office, and were enjoined by his civil contract. 

And even after he had given some grounds to believe that they 
had just cause of complaint against him, they were disposed to over- 
look his faults, in expectation of amendment j and learning his de- 
sire to travel to restore the health he had sacrificed, as he himself 
admitted, not in their service, but in that of parties, sects and objects, 
having no immediate connexion with his Parish, they cheerfully 
raised a fund, and gave him the means to gratify his wish to visit 
other countries. And none were more active on this occasion than 
were many of the members of the Committee who now act as the 
organ of the Society in laying their complaints before you. 

This, as I have just intimated, was after many complaints had 
been made against him for various reasons. But they were willing 
to put up with many things they could not entirely approve, and to 
40 



314 



bear with him so long as he promised, and seem to be disposed by 
amendment, to discharge his duties and perform his contract, in 
such a manner as a christian people have a right to expect from 
their settled minister. 

These facts, which are not denied, and which are abundantly 
proved, clearly show that there was no disposition in the Parish to 
carp and complain at slight faults and errors in judgment ; no con- 
tentious feeling or factious spirit or party in the Society, working to 
create or increase difficulties or seeking for an occasion to dissolve 
the connexion and turn him away ; but on the contrary, an earnest 
desire and endeavor to remove all causes of dissension and a wil- 
lingness to bear with him in the spirit of a generous people, reason- 
able, forbearing and forgiving, as Christians ought to be. 

With these feelings they parted with him for a time, well provid- 
ed by their bounty, and his services supplied at their charge with- 
out any reduction of his income from the Society. And, Sir, when 
he returned from Europe, all his indiscretions, faults and follies 
were forgotten, and he was received with the warmest cordiality 
by his people. That was asserted by the learned counsel for the 
Pastor, in argument, and I agree to it. I rely upon it as conclusive 
proof, that with him it rested at that time, to preserve this cor- 
diality and harmony, and he ought to have cultivated and con- 
firmed these kindly feelings. I admit, as the learned counsel has 
asserted, that the beautiful hymn, composed and sung on the occa- 
sion of his return to his parish, was strongly indicative of the 
feelings they then entertained, and of their general disposition 
towards him. They relied on the promises he had made be- 
fore he went to Europe, that if his health was restored, his life 
should be devoted to them, and to the peace and welfare of his 
own immediate Society, by abstaining from matters of party con- 
troversy, and other matters not belonging to the cause of religion, 
ard devoting himself to the rightful service of his pulpit and his 
people. And, confiding in this assurance of their Pastor, they were 
willing and ready to cast the veil of charity over his past errors. 

I may well say then, that it is no complaining, captious or quar- 
relsome spirit ; it is no indifference to religion, or disregard to pub- 
lic worship ; it is no mean, niggardly or avaricious disposition, that 
has led to the renewal and the increase of the difficulties and di- 
visions that have been accumulating, ever since that period of har- 
mony and cordial good feeling, on the part of the parish. The 
cause is to be found in the entire disregard of their feelings, and 
the settled purpose with which the old offences were renewed ; 
the pertinacity with which he persisted in them, and his constantly 
recurring indiscretions, faults and impracticability. 

But even these, painful as they were, unkind as they were, after all 
that had been done by the Society, and promised by him, would have 
been again forgiven and forgotten, at a late period, had the Pastor 
but reasonably endeavored to conform to the wishes of his people 
as to the course he intended to pursue. 



315 



Sir, this people were not wanting in a Christian temper and 
spirit towards their Pastor. They sought reconciliation with him, 
so long as the hope of reconciliation remained. It was not until 
individual Councils and personal wishes proved utterly unavailing, 
that the parish appointed a Committee to confer with him on the 
subject of their complaints. 

This conference was conducted on their part in kindness and 
forbearance. They did not seek to dissolve their connexion with 
him, or to exact of him anything unreasonable ; and when asked 
by him if it was their purpose, or within their power, to propose a 
dissolution of the pastoral relation between him and the Society, 
they at once disclaimed it. They came to consult with him in 
kindness, and to inquire whether some course could not be pursued 
by him, in relation to the causes of complaint, which should be con- 
sistent with his rights and duties as their Pastor, and yet devote 
himself more exclusively to their service, and avoid topics of polit- 
cal controversy and more especially a certain offensive manner, and 
constantly recurring pointed allusions, applicable to individuals and 
portions of his parish, that could only irritate and never persuade or 
convince. 

That consultation was a long one, and it terminated in a manner, 
at the time, entirely satisfactory to the Committee. It might not 
have been so to all the Parish, the confidence of some might not 
.have been fully restored, but the Committee were satisfied with the 
verbal and written communications from the Pastor, and so well sat- 
isfied that they made great exertions to have their report accepted, and 
their endeavors did finally prevail. They thought they had accom- 
plished the object of their appointment, which was to restore peace 
and harmony in the Society. They relied on the letter of the Pastor 
through them to his people, as a solemn and sure pledge of that har- 
mony, and that letter was understood by all, (as it must be under- 
stood, by every high minded man who reads it plainly, without 
looking for the nicety and precision of special pleading in the lan- 
guage of a letter) as an assurance of his utmost endeavors to re- 
move all reasonable grounds of complaint. 

They could not otherwise understand that letter, without direct 
imputations on the candor and ingenuousness of the Pastor. They 
were not so uncharitable as to view it in this light. All remained 
quiet, therefore, until the Pastor gave new cause of offence. And 
it was not until after this, and when all remonstrance, all kind- 
ness, and all council on their part, and all assurances on his part 
had failed, and they became satisfied that he was regardless of his 
promises and incorrigible in his course, that they came to the con- 
clusion, that his usefulness was at an end. 

By his obstinacy, perverseness, and daily indiscretion, the breach, 
small at first, became at last irreparable ; the majority became de- 
cidedly against him, and as the only means of bringing these differ- 
ences to a definite settlement, the Committee, which has since acted 
in behalf of the Proprietors, was raised by a vote of the Society. 



316 



This majority has since increased, and of the Proprietors who 
alone constitute the members of the parish, there is now a very 
considerable and an increasing majority against him, who have by 
their votes sanctioned these " Grounds of Complaint." 

In April, 1840, they formally laid before the Pastor their " Grounds 
of Complaint" which they had put on the records of the society in their 
vote, as the requisite step, as they then supposed, to bring the ques- 
tion of a dissolution of the connexion before the Supreme Court. 
But it appeared to them, subsequently to the time when they were 
put on the record, that these complaints, taken as a whole, or at 
least many of them were of a nature, that without the intervention 
of an Ecclesiastical Council, the Supreme Court possibly might not 
be willing to interfere ; and therefore it was deemed most expe- 
dient to call such a Council. 

It was for that reason, however, that the " Grounds of Complaint" 
of April were put upon the records of the Parish. It was not done 
with any idle or mischievous intention to injure the Pastor, or merely 
to cast a shadow upon his reputation by handing them down to pos- 
terity, as he infers, but in order that the Parish might avail them- 
selves of their legal rights. 

At this time they had, for good reasons, lost all confidence in their 
Pastor, and perhaps all respect for him. His usefulness was clear- 
ly at an end. So long as he should remain, it was evident that di- 
vision must remain among them, and peace could only be restored 
by his removal. 

At the same time, therefore, that the recorded complaints of the 
Society were made known to the Pastor, he was requested to join 
them in calling a Mutual Council to consider and determine wheth- 
er the connexion between him and the Parish should not be dis- 
solved. And then, at the Pastor's request, more specific charges, 
which are now the subject of your consideration, were prepared 
and exhibited to him. A long correspondence ensued, which 
eventually terminated, as we think, not very creditably to the Pas- 
tor, in a disagreement, in consequence of his unreasonable and unfair 
attempts to limit the powers of the Counsel, and to convene a Coun- 
cil with such limited powers, under pretext of an agreement of the 
parties. The Society then repeated their call upon him to join in 
calling a Council with the usual powers, and he refusing to join in 
the call, they proceeded according to usage to call an ex-parte Coun- 
cil. This Council, when convened, as you know, the parties agreed 
should be taken and considered as a Mutual Council, and under the 
authority conferred by that agreement, you now are sitting. 

Such, Mr Moderator and gentlemen of the Council, is the brief 
history of this Society in its connexion with its present Pastor. I 
have gone over it in this manner, because it was necessary to be 
understood, preparatory to considering the " Grounds of Complaint" 
which are more immediately before you. 

Under circumstances like these it is believed that most Christian 



317 



Ministers, in view of the object of their sacred calling, and the'spirit- 
ual welfare of the people under their pastoral charge, would have 
felt bound to ask a dismission without the advice or intervention of 
a Council. 

And the learned Pastor himself seems so to have considered the 
matter, when, (in the exercise of his own judgment, unbiassed by 
those who had the interests of sects rather than of the parish to 
subserve in urging him to remain) he came to the conclusion, that 
his usefulness was at an end, and drew up a letter of resignation. 

But, unfortunately I think, some persons professing to act as his 
friends, but having other interests principally in view, thought proper 
to advise and insist that he should not send it in. Some of those who 
gave this advice have testified here before you, and they have now 
distinctly told you that their motive in advising the Pastor to remain, 
in spite of the wishes of a large portion of his people, was not the 
interests and welfare of this Society, but the supposed interest of a 
particular sect or cause ; not the cause of religion, but the cause of 
a party — of a body of pertinacious men, bent on particular objects, 
and willing to make the Pastor a tool in the accomplishment of 
these objects. 

I am not to be understood as speaking against any particular 
party here, for having in their general views, any object that is not 
in its proper place, highly commendable. But a party may and is 
rather more inclined than an individual to pursue a right object by 
wrong means ; and therein those who have invited the Pastor of 
the parish to an exercise of his natural tendency to controversy and 
extremes have greatly erred. 

Sir, I am as ready as any man to promote the cause of Temper- 
ance and the Abolition of Slavery, in a reasonable way, and I ven- 
ture to say, that I may so speak in behalf of the Proprietors. But 
there is an esssential difference between approving of a good cause 
and of the means that some over zealous and indiscreet persons em- 
ploy to urge it forward. Hence there may, in regard to the most 
valuable objects of reform or improvement, be a great difference of 
opinion as to the best means to be used, when there can be in the 
minds of rational people, no question whether or not these great 
objects are the proper subjects of encouragement and approbation. 

This endeavoring to aid a good cause, by improper means, Sir, 
lies at the bottom of one of the causes of complaint against the 
learned Pastor. He and his immediate friends have arbitrarily, and 
somewhat dogmatically, assumed, that all who will not join them in 
promoting Temperance and Abolition, precisely in their way, are 
opposed to both. They have obstinately confounded the means 
with the end, and claiming infallibility for themselves, they have 
set up their means as the only measure of sincerity, and denounce 
all who will not conform to the standard of their sect or party. 

Hence the constantly irritating allusions, the bitter aspersions, 
the open attack, and the private annoyance, which has been kept 



318 



up between the Pastor and his Parish, until it has ended at last in 
this irreconcilable difference. 

And of this incurable dissatisfaction, we therefore say, the 
unreasonable conduct of the Pastor, is the .main cause. And this 
conduct is not the less unreasonable from the fact, that finding par- 
ticular circumstances likely to produce differences on these points, 
existing in his parish, instead of conciliating, he sought to inflame 
the cause of dissension by persisting in a course that seems to have 
been taken with a design to drive out one portion of the parish, in 
order to secure the place of worship exclusively for another, for the 
promotion of their particular extravagant notions, and their sects or 
parties, aside from the concerns of religion. 

I repeat, then, that I am not in what I say to be understood as 
speaking against the cause of Temperance or the Abolition of Sla- 
very. For they have nothing to do, or rather they ought to have 
nothing to do, with the question before this Council, on the " Grounds 
of Complaint" against the Pastor. The Proprietors did not bring 
them forward or insist upon them. It is the opposite side that in- 
sists pertinaciously, in spite of all protestation to the contrary, upon 
making them the main cause of the difficulty. 

Under these circumstances it has become indispensible to the 
peace of the Society and the interests of religion, either that the 
Pastor, or the majority of his Parish, should leave. Which ought 
to go, the majority of the Parish who are dissatisfied, or the Pastor, 
who has caused the dissatisfaction ? It cannot, I think, be doubted, 
that whenever such a crisis arises in a Parish, even if without any 
very gross misconduct or fault of the Pastor, he must see that his 
usefulness is at an end, and that he ought to, as he will, if he be a 
christian, resign his connexions with the parish, no matter what 
may be the nature of his contract with them. 

The interests of public worship, and especially the permanency 
of a settled clergy, require that this should be a sufficient ground 
for a dissolution of the contract. For no Society will be likely in 
future to contract with a Minister for a permanent salary, if it shall 
be found impossible ever afterwards, in consequence of his refusal 
to ask a dismission on such reasonable grounds, to dissolve their 
connexion with him. 

I say, then, that under the circumstances well known to the Pastor 
of Hollis Street Church, it was his duty to have resigned, or at 
least to have put that issue before the Parish and acquiesced in 
their decision. But, unfortunately, he declined sending in his resig- 
nation, though obviously satisfied that it was proper he should do 
so, and you now have to determine that question between him and 
the parish, in this controversy which he has thus forced upon the 
Society. And painful as the task really is, it has become the duty 
of the Parish to lay their complaints before you for that purpose. 

The question which arises upon their complaints is not merely 
whether the learned pastor is guilty of any legal offence, of any 



319 



crime, which in a Court of Justice would subject him to punishment* 
It is a question of a very different nature, and to be determined by 
entirely different rules and principles, and that is, whether he sustains 
such a relation, preserve such a course of conduct, possesses such 
qualifications, temper and manners, and performs his duties in such 
way as a christian Minister ought to do, in order to retain his con- 
nexion with his Society, even against the wishes of a large majority 
of his Parish — and what amount of neglect, folly, indiscretion, per- 
versity, unfitness, or any other matter incompatible with his sacred 
office or his relation to his Parish, you will require to have establish- 
shed, and by what testimony or proof, in order to justify a majority 
of the Parish in dissolving the contract, on the ground of general 
expediency. 

The complaints against the learned Pastor are many, consisting 
of a variety of acts and neglects, too numerous to be specified. 
None, perhaps, are very prominent, when compared with others, 
but they consist of a multitude of little things constantly occurring, 
and pertinaciously persisted in, and thus accumulating an indescri- 
bable mass of soreness and irritation which it has become impossible 
to heal but by severing the cause. These annoyances, minute 
when described, but painful when borne, depending so much upon 
manner and circumstances to give them point, it is impossible by 
any language in my power to lay before you, as they have been 
felt by those who have suffered under them. They are such as no 
persons, but those who did actually sit under the Pastor from week 
to week, apprehending while he was sermonizing, that every 
coming sentence might contain an open outrage upon decency or 
propriety to shock, or a covert but venomous sting to wound, their 
feelings, could appreciate ; and even they could not describe them 
so as to convey to this Council the effect they were intended to, 
and did, produce upon personal feeling, when uttered in his pecu- 
liarly emphatic manner. 

This is one of the main causes of their complaint, and yet the 
impossibility of collecting together all these little matters, small in 
themselves, great in the aggregate, must be apparent. And all they 
could be reasonably expected to do, was to call the oldest and most 
discreet of the Society, and give you some idea of the extent of the 
evil, from their recollections of the effects of particular instances 
that rest in their memory. But it must be seen that it is extremely 
difficult to give anything more than a general idea of them. These 
annoyances and indiscretions might occur from Sabbath to Sabbath 
— the people might sit under the preacher apprehensive every mo- 
ment of something to offend or disgust one portion or another of 
the Congregation, to irritate some personal feeling, or wound 
some private grief, and yet not be able, here, to specify the time, 
place or occasion. 

They have, therefore, brought such proof in regard to these things, 
as the nature of the case admitted ; though by no means all that 
with their utmost exertions, they might possibly have done. Much 



320 



more exertions might have been made, much more testimony un- 
doubtedly might have been produced, but they were sensible, that if 
they had called every dissatisfied person before you to relate all 
he knew, the examination would be most painfully protracted, and 
they felt bound to have some regard for your patience and conven- 
ience in the hearing, and to confine their testimony within reasonable 
limits ; and that is one of the reasons why further testimony on the 
minuter, but perhaps most annoying matters of complaint, has not 
been produced. 

And, besides, I think I am fully warranted in saying, notwith- 
standing the gratuitous assertions of the learned counsel for the 
pastor to the contrary, that in regard to all the grounds of complaint, 
the Society have not been favored with the like powerful and 
effective aids, and have not been enabled to make the like efficient 
exertions in producing all the testimony and proofs which might be 
obtained, as those zealons partizans, of whose services the learned 
Pastor has been able to avail himself in his defence. 

It was said by the learned counsel on the other side, that we 
had drawn a net through the current of the whole life of the Pastor, 
and dragged up every thing we could find to lay before you ; — 
that we had collected every bitter herb we could gather in the 
growth of twenty years, and thrown it into the cauldron to concoct 
these charges. 

It is not so. So far from it, so little exertions have been made 
on the part of the Proprietors, so little have they done towards 
collecting every thing to be found against him, that they have 
omitted to obtain some of the most material testimony to establish 
one of the gravest charges in the grounds of complaint ; and if 
there are bitter herbs produced here, Mr Moderator, they are herbs 
of the Pastor's own planting and culling. 

The Committee for the Proprietors, are as you see, most of them 
aged men, and the others are persons whose time is chiefly occupied 
by the business of their calling. They are not the persons to be 
active in getting up testimony. And the chairman, (Mr Crane) 
whom the learned Counsel for the Pastor represented as the first, 
the middle and the last in this examination, is not a man who can 
spare much of his time from the demands of his business to devote to 
this object. You must have seen that he has been frequently absent, 
even during this trial where his attendance was so necessary ; and 
he was so because he could not wholly neglect his own concerns 
even for the sake of this cause ; and in fact, there has not been a 
man on the Committee who could devote the personal attention 
necessary to collect all the evidence that might have been useful 
in a hearing like this. 

I do not say this as if there were any deficiency in our testimony, 
when considered in the light in which it ought to be viewed by 
you, to sustain fully the substance of the grounds of complaint. 
But if any argument is founded on the amount of exertion of either 



321 



party, as seemed to be intimated on the other side, it will be proper 
to look on that side, and consider the external aids and interests, 
aside from the Parish, which have given the greatest impulse and 
effect to the efforts of the friends of the learned Pastor to sustain 
him in his course against the majority of the Society. It will be 
recollected that besides his learned counsel and his own eminent 
ability to manage this controversy, he has not been wanting in the 
aid of most zealous and indefatigable partizans in other causes than 
the welfare of this Parish ; men who have identified the success of 
their particular sects and parties out of the society, with the success 
of the Pastor in this struggle to keep a Minister in his pulpit, with 
power to use it for any party or purpose he pleases, against the 
wishes and will of a majority of his Society. 

These Mr Moderator, are in reality, the men who are urging and 
goading on the Pastor to continue with his society, and who vehe- 
mently declaim against any restraint of what they call the independ- 
ence of the pulpit, but what only means, in their understanding, the 
independence of a Minister of his actual Parish, in using their pulpit 
against their will, to promote the views and suit the extravagant 
notions of other people who are not of his Parish, and whose aim 
is not the advancement, of religion or the cause of Christianity, but 
the success of a cause or a party of a political rather than a religious 
character, in which, these zealots are contending for power and 
distinction. 

These are the powerful aids with which the learned Pastor is 
sustained out of his society, as is apparent from the fact shown 
here, and distinctly avowed by one of their witnesses, that he has 
had the leading men of more than one of these secular parties in 
readiness to get up agitation in his Church and Society upon Abo- 
lition and other matters, but for the sake of agitation, when there 
is not just occasion for it. These men who are very numerous 
and very active, have been over-zealous, ever busy and unwearied 
in their efforts in his cause, which they have espoused and identified 
as their own, as from their peculiar temperament, they seem to be 
in ail the exciting topics of the day. And it therefore comes with an 
ill grace from the lips of the learned Pastor and his Counsel, to 
speak as they have done of the zeal and efforts and influence of the 
society in getting up the testimony and proofs for this hearing, and 
to pretend and endeavor to create a belief that the Pastor had to 
contend under great disadvantages on this account. 

But without detaining you any longer at present with general re- 
marks concerning your jurisdiction, or the manner in which you 
should exercise it ; or touching the parties before you ; or the na- 
ture of the cause, or of the testimony, or the efforts of either party 
in obtaining it, I will now proceed to that which is the main sub- 
ject of your enquiry, the specific grounds of complaint now made 
before you by the Society against their Pastor. 

[At one o'clock, the Council adjourned till 4 P. M.] 
41 



322 



Thursday Afternoon, July 22. 

Mr. RAND resumed. 

When this council adjourned, I was about to consider the 
Grounds of Complaint, exhibited against the Pastor as reasons 
for dissolving his connexion with the parish. 

One of the grounds of complaint, and that which I shall first 
consider is, that the Pastor is and has been wanting in that scru- 
pulous integrity that is necessary to the respectability and use- 
fulness of a christian minister. 

When I speak of integrity as applied to a minister of the gos- 
pel, I speak of something of a higher cast, than the common kind 
of honesty ; a keeping on. the safe side of the law, or what is 
sometimes called a legal conscience, which is satisfied by a mere 
compliance with law, in discharging its duties and engagements. 
I speak of a just and delicate sense of what is right, of a mor- 
al integrity that can never avail itself of mere legal right to do 
a moral wrong, that integrity which prompts one to live and 
act 

" Above the fixed and settled rules 
Of vice and virtue in the schools, 
Above the letter of the law " 

Under this general ground of complaint, I propose first to con- 
sider ^the transactions of the learned Pastor with Mr. Fowle, 
referred to in the specification. 

The first agreement of the learned Pastor with Mr. Fowle, was 
for a specific object, which Mr. Fowle had himself suggested to 
him. It was to compile a School Book for Mr. Fowle, and lend 
his name to it, for a sum of money. This Was the specific bargain 
or contract. It was an entire and unconditional purchase on the 
part of Mr. Fowle, of the services of the Pastor, and his name to 
the book,with no reservation to him whatsoever. Mr. Fowle agreed 
to give Mr. Pierpont five hundred dollars for compiling a work 
and putting his name to it to give it currency. This being the 
bargain, the question for you to determine is, was the product of 
that labor purchased by Mr Fowle his property, honestly and 
fairly, to all intents and purposes as between Mr. Fowle and 
Mr. Pierpont. Was it not a fair and reasonable bargain ? And 
is not this a fair and just construction of it ? Mr. Pierpont was 
sure of his five hundred dollars, whether the book should suc- 
ceed or fail. He incurred no expense or risk whatever. He re- 
ceived all which he asked for his labor and the use of his name. 
Mr. Fowle took the whole expense and risk of printing and pub- 
lication. The work was an experiment of a doubtful character, 
it might not meet with success, and if it failed, Mr. Fowle was 
to lose not only the five hundred dollars, but the outlay in the 
printing. I beg you to keep this one thing in view, that is the 
nature and obvious design of that contract. It was to make a 
book for Mr. Fowle, not for Mr. Pierpont. The work was to be 
as entirely to all intents and purposes, the work of Mr. Fowle, in 
the progress and on the completion of it, as if it had been all 



323 



compiled by him alone. The name was not to be added to af- 
fect the title, or restrict the rights of Mr. Fowle, but only to 
render the work more valuable to him by rendering it more salea- 
ble. The work was to be considered as Mr. Fowle's, as fully as 
the manufacture made by the journeyman from the materials, ac- 
cording to the plan and under the instructions of the employer, 
is to be considered as the manufacture of the master, although 
the name of him who performed the manual labor may be stamp- 
ed upon it ; or as the printed book is to be considered the work 
of him, who alone planned and composed it, although the printer 
may have put his name to it. This was plainly the understand- 
ing of the parties whatever may be the legal effect of their writ- 
ten contract. Indeed Mr. Fowle positively refused to accept Mr. 
Pierpont's proposal to have an interest in the work. 

Now the want of integrity of which we complain in the Pas- > 
tor, consists in part, in his setting up a claim to a renewal of the 
copyright, at the expiration of the fourteen years, as being him- 
self the author. In some points of view it is wholly immaterial 
whether in law he was to be considered the original author or 
not. For it is certain that he intended for the five hundred dol- 
lars to do all the labor of compiling the work itself, for Mr. 
Fowle, and to lend his name, for which he received one hundred 
dollars aside from the labor. And consequently he intended, and 
it was well understood that Mr. Fowle should have all the inter- 
est and rights of an author in the copyright of the piece of work 
stamped with the Pastors name, which he had compiled for and 
under the direction of Mr. Fowle. 

Now if Mr. Pierpont was in the eye of the law, nevertheless to 
be viewed as the author of the work, yet the agreement would 
at least amount to a transfer of the copyright with all the bene- 
fit to be derived from it. Mr. Fowle then, if not the author, was 
the assignee of the copyright. And as such, it would seem, was 
by the law then in force, which has been referred to, and which 
I will read to you, in one construction of it, entitled to the re- 
newal of it at the end of the time of fourteen years. 

The copyright law of 1790, was then in force, and applied to 
that contract. [Mr. Rand here referred to the act of May 31st, 
1790, section 1.] 

This law, it will be seen, seems to make provision not only for 
the author, but for his legal representatives, administrators, execu- 
tors and assigns, and either of these persons may renew a copyright 
at the expiration of fourteen years. Therefore, if Mr. Pierpont 
was in law, the author, and had assigned the work to Mr. Fowle, 
he must yield his rights to the assignee as to the renewal of the 
copyright, because when a work is assigned or sold to another by 
the author the assignee, as it would seem by virtue of this stat- 
ute, and not the author, has a right to the renewal as incident to 
the conveyance. 



324 



[Mr. Pierpont here denied that this was the proper construction 
of the law, and said it was not correctly cited, as a whole, and 
begged as his counsel was then absent that Mr. Rand would ab- 
stain from comments upon the law.] 

Mr. Rand. I cite it only so far as the counsel for the learned 
Pastor referred to it, and I contend, that in point of law, and in 
this case most obviously in point of right and fair dealing, the 
entire copyright, with all its incidents of continuance and renew- 
al, was in Mr. Fowle and not in Mr. Pierpont. 

But was Mr. Pierpont, in fact, or in law, the author of that 
work, the American Class Book ? Was appending his name for 
another purpose to a mere compilation which he had made for 
Mr. Fowle, or rather assisted him in making, sufficient to make 
him the author, and enable him, in honor and justice, to assume 
the benefits of a renewal of the copyright, to the exclusion of his 
employer, Mr. Fowle, and in direct opposition of the understand- 
ing of the parties ? 

This matter, in its bearing on the question of strict integrity, 
depends not so much upon the nicety of legal construction, as 
upon the honest intent of the parties, to be gathered not merely 
from the true meaning of the written agreement between them, 
but from the fair understanding of the whole arrangement and 
transactions. To these we are to look and not to mere technical 
rules or legal quibbles. 

What are the facts on which the Pastor's claim are founded ? — 
Was he the sole author or even compiler of the work ? Did he 
contribute all the labor for the work ? No. Was the plan or 
scheme of the work his ? No. The project, the plan of the 
work and many of the selections were Mr. Fovvle's, who assisted 
in the compiling it. Mr. Pierpont had no idea of making such 
a book, until it was proposed by Mr. Fowle, and when it was 
first suggested he proposed an old plan, that of Scotts' Lessons. 
Mr. Fowle suggested another and better plan, which, at his re- 
quest, Mr. Pierpont followed, and Mr. Fowle contributed very 
materially to the work by furnishing rare books for selections, 
not to be found in this country, but obtained by him from abroad, 
for this special purpose, at considerable expense. The book was 
a compilation, not an original work. It required judgment and 
taste in the selection and arrangement. Who exercised that 
judgment and taste ? Was it done by Mr. Pierpont exclusively ? 
No. It was done jointly by Mr. Fowle and Mr. Pierpont, the 
former having entirely suggested and marked out the plan which 
was adopted and upon which it appears, the success of the book 
greatly depended. Mr. Fowle gave him the use of his rare books, 
pointed out some selections, contributed directly to the work him- 
self, and among other things made a translation of one piece, of 
considerable importance from a foreign language, and arranged 
it in the form of dialogue, and jointly with Mr. Pierpont, revised 
the whole work and corrected the press. The learned Pastor did 



325 



not, therefore, by any means, perform the entire labor, — he did 
not even conceive or help in devising the plan or procure the 
materials for the selections, and for his labor he was fully paid, 
on his own terms. It surely may be said that he neither project- 
ed nor planned the work, nor wholly compiled it, nor was respon- 
sible for the loss if any should result from the undertaking. 

One circumstance already stated, shows clearly beyond a rea- 
sonable doubt, that it was never agreed or understood that as be- 
tween the parties the learned Pastor was to be considered or 
treated as the author of the work, or as entitled to any of the 
rights or privileges of an author, and that is, that the first propo- 
sal was to publish it without the use of his name, allowing him 
for his labor four hundred dollars. He was unwilling unless paid 
an additional sum for it, to put his name to it. 

And hence the proposal to give him $100 more for the use of 
his name. Now if Mr. Pierpont's assumption that he has a right 
to take the book from Mr. Fowle because he put his name to it, 
be correct, it follows that Mr. Fowle gave him $100 additional, 
to be the author and set up his claim to renewal of the copyright, 
which otherwise would have belonged to Mr. Fowle. This in- 
volves aM absurdity. Suppose Mr. Pierpont had told Mr. Fowle, 
if you will add $100 to the bargain, I will put my name to the 
book, and if it is unsuccessful you, will of course, bear the loss, 
but if it turns out to be worth a renewal, I shall claim it as mine 
at the end of fourteen years, do you believe that Mr. Fowle 
would have agreed to it, and paid him the additional sum? No, 
he would have said you are sure of your pay, I incur all the risk, 
if the book fails, and am entitled to all its benefits, as my proper- 
ty, if it succeeds. If Mr. Pierpont had then set up that claim 
the bargain would not have been made. Could he honestly and 
fairly do so afterwards? No. The real intent and fair under- 
standing by which he is bound, then was, that Mr. Fowle was to 
be considered substantially, though not nominally, the author and 
proprietor, as to all the rights which Mr. Pierpont could have or 
convey, and whatever jesuitical quibbles and constructions may be 
made elsewhere, that would be the only construction that a Court 
of Equity would put upon this transaction. If a bill were filed 
on this issue between the parties, I venture to say there could be 
no question entertained, as to the equitable right of Mr. Fowle to 
a renewal of the copyright. The Court would look to the plain 
and obvious intent of the parties in their whole dealings with each 
other 

The learned counsel says that Mr. Fowle has received more in 
one year from this work, than he gave Mr. Pierpont for his labor 
in compiling it. But what if it be so? Does not the learned 
counsel remember what has been shown, that the whole expense 
and risk of the enterprise was to be borne by Mr. Fowle, who 
undertook and planned the work and hired the Pastor to assist in 



326 



compiling it ? If it has proved a fortunate undertaking, can that 
alter the special contract with Mr. Pierpont, or give him any new 
right ? 

But as if it would quite exculpate the learned Pastor we are 
reminded by his counsel that he offered to refer the matter to Mr. 
Justice Story. But what did he offer to refer? Did he offer to 
refer the question whether upon the principles of morality or 
honesty and fair dealing he ought to set up and insist upon his 
claim? No. He only offered to refer the case, so far merely, 
as it regarded the construction of the statutory law. Mr. Fowle, 
on the contrary offered to leave the whole matter to referees with 
full power, to settle the differences between himself and the Pas- 
tor, having a regard to the facts, to the intention of the parties 
and to the equity as well as the law of the case. And to this pro- 
posal the Pastor would not accede. 

But this matter as presented before this Ecclesiastical Council 
is not to be affected by any offer of submission to referees, nor is, 
to be tried by the mere letter of the law, as administered in the 
courts of common law or equity, but by the rules of sound mor- 
ality, and scrupulous integrity, that ought to govern men, who in 
the use of their sacred office, as ministers of religion, are to 
teach, by example, as well as precept, the right wav, not for oth- 
ers alone to pursue, but wherein to walk straight-forward them- 
selves. And, I ask you, upon a review of all the facts in this 
transaction, whether on any fair, and just and equitable ground, 
the learned Pastor is justified in setting up such a claim in the 
manner he has done ? Would either of the reverend members 
of this Council, under like circumstances, adopt a like course, 
and feel conscious that he was doing right, and dealing justly as 
between man and man? Would it be thought consistent with a 
scrupulous regard to integrity ? If not, then is it not a stain upon 
the clerical character of the learned Pastor to have set up such a 
claim and to have persisted in it hitherto? 

But this is not all. He has done wrong in assigning at one time 
his whole interest in the work, and at another time his joint inter- 
est with Mr. Fowle in the two books, the National Reader and 
First Class Book in pledge, in violation of his express agreement 
not to dispose of his interest in either, in any way, without notice 
to Mr. Fowle, and without his consent. 

You will recollect that it appeared by the evidence, that after 
the publication of the Class Book, by Mr. Fowle, Mr. Pierpont 
having compiled another work, the National Reader, proposed an 
agreement to divide the profits of both. In that written con- 
tract, it was stipulated that neither should dispose of his interest 
without the consent of the other, and eadi was to endeavor to 
promote their mutual interest. Such was the agreement, and 
on the part of the learned Pastor, at least, it should have been 
religiously and honorably performed. Was it performed at all? 
I am constrained to say it was not. For, without the knowledge 



%%1 

or consent of Mr. Fowle, Mr. Pierpont did, in 1S30, transfer in 
pledge to a creditor the whole proceeds of the National Reader, 
the copy-right to which stood on the record in his name, not- 
withstanding he had conveyed one half of his interest to Mr. 
Fowle. And afterwards, in 1S33, there was an attempt by the 
Pastor, to transfer the whole proceeds of both works to another 
creditor, and the first part of the contract of sale by Mr. Pier- 
pont, reads so, distinctly. It is contended on the other side, that 
the latter part of the agreement, limits and qualifies the first. I 
do not so understand it ; but if it be so, it is conceeded that he 
transferred his own part, without the knowledge or consent of 
Mr. Fowle. This he certainly did, and to do so was a breach of 
his contract, not only legally, but especially in the higher moral 
sense in which you are to consider his conduct as a minister of 
religion. 

It is said that he disposed of his interest in these books, in 
order to discharge a debt of his brother, and this is claimed as a 
meritorious act. It was not, however, the debt of his brother 
alone, but a joint concern of his own and his brother, growing 
out of the unprofitable investment in the screw business, which 
utterly failed. But even if it had been his brother's debt alone, 
was that any reason he should violate his written contract with 
Mr. Fowle? It is said he had a legal right to make these pledges 
and that Mr. Fowle was not injured by these transactions. But 
he certainly had no legal right, and much less was he authorized 
by the moral law to violate a solemn contract. At law, he could 
not not do it, without being subject to the penalty or redress the 
law would give for such a violation. And Mr. Bowen's letter, 
and Mr. Williams concessions, sufficiently prove that Mr. Fowle 
by the conduct of the Pastor, was put completely in the power 
of the publishers. And the injury was much enhanced, by the 
notice to them through his attorney, that he claimed a right to 
a renewal of the copy-right to the First Class Book, forbidding 
them to deal with Mr. Fowle, and declaring that he had no in- 
terest in it. 

But shall we stand here, in a question of moral and religious 
obligation, upon the nice points of law to determine right and 
wrong, and integrity of character, or the want of it, by the 
amount of damages that probably would be recovered against a 
minister for breaking his solemn engagements? I shall not dwell 
on the mere question of law between the parties — for I know 
that you, Mr. Moderator and gentlemen, will go higher ; but I 
distinctly deny that the Courts of law ever proceeded on a prin- 
ciple that would justify acts so unrighteous as these. These 
transactions on the part of the Pastor, under his agreement 
with Mr. Fowle, were injurious and unjust, in law, equity, or 
any moral view you can take of the matter. 

There is another view of this transaction, which strikes me as 



328 

showing that the Pastor's conduct in this case was unbecoming 
a minister of the gospel ; that is, the general character of his 
course of dealing here — his bargaining with all the shrewdness 
meanness and secresy of a Jewish clothes-dealer, and taking 
every advantage to make the sales so as to get the most for him- 
self, without respect to the rights or interest of Mr. Fowle, and 
then referring him to the law for redress, and standing upon legal 
quibbles and subtleties to support his claim. 

You are to look at this transaction, not merely as a legal 
question between the parties concerned, but as a matter affecting 
the integrity and good faith of the Pastor in his pecuniary en- 
gagements, and you are to determine whether in that light, it 
would not affect the confidence of the public in the Pastor, and 
seriously diminish the respect he ought to maintain with his 
people, and thereby injure his usefulness as a teacher of piety 
and religion. 

How did Mr. Fowle, the aggrieved party, regard this transac- 
tion? You have his testimony to that point. It is said that he 
is deeply interested; but how is he interested? — So as take ma- 
terially from the weight of his opinion? He is not a willing, but 
a reluctant witness here. ' He is certainly a competent, and cred- 
ible, and apparently a fair witness, with a just perception of right 
and wrong ; and he has told you wherein and why he regarded 
the conduct of the Pastor as wanting in strict integrity in this 
matter. I think that the view he has taken, would be the man- 
ner in which laymen generally, would regard it; and I ask, as 
clergymen, if you will view it in a different light ? — If you will 
adopt a lower standard of morality, as a measure for clergymen, 
than that which is generally received among laymen 2 

But there have been other transactions affecting the character 
of the learned Pastor for integrity, and I will proceed now to 
the next transaction in the specifications under this general 
head, which is the matter of the Steel hone, and the betraying by 
the Pastor of the confidence reposed in him by Dr. Bemis. 

Some years ago, Dr. Bemis, then a young man, had made, or 
supposed he had made, an invention of an annealed steel hone, 
to sharpen cutting instruments. Mr. Pierpont obtained posses- 
sion of it, under a pledge to keep it secret, and it was a solemn 
engagement on his part. Dr. Bemis, relying on the integrity of 
the learned Pastor, and upon his legal knowledge, when assured 
by him that it would not affect his rights, intrusted him with 
the invention, and permitted him to make one from it, with the 
understanding that it was not to be made known to any one, lest 
it should affect his claim to a patent, when he should be pre- 
pared to apply for it, which it was then well understood might 
not be for a long time. The' learned Pastor agreed to this, and 
received the hone and instructions how it was made, under that 
pledge, but it appears that he did divulge it, without the consent 
of the inventor, and that the secret was communicated from the 



329 



Pastor to Sproat, and from Sproat to Babbit, who tells you that 
he manufactured the article from this information, made one for 
the Pastor and that Ashton afterwards had them from Babbit, and 
sold them in Boston, as Pierpont's hones. Since this transaction, 
of which Mr. Bemis has never ceased to complain, the learned Pas- 
tor has shunned him, would not recognize him, altho' he had been 
in the habit before of frequently calling on him, and has never given 
him any explanation of his canduct, from that time to the present 
There was some communication through Deacon Brown when 
alive, and though him an explanation and an interview were 
promised, but the learned Pastor never made the promised ex- 
planation, and at last, when Dr. Bemis, having lost all confidence 
in his promises, said he believed he did not mean to explain it, 
Deacon Brown, who was tired of making promises for him, said 
he believed so himself. 

Deacon May then called on Dr. Bemis. The story of this 
transaction was abroad, and the conduct of the Pastor therein had 
become the subject of frequent animadversion, and Dea. May, it 
seems, as the friend of Mr. Pierpont, thought it required explan- 
ation on the part of Mr. Pierpont, and after a narrative at his re- 
quest, of the whole matter, by Dr. Bemis, the Deacon assured 
Dr. Bemis that Mr. Pierpont, who was then, as he alleged, out 
of town, would call and explain it when he returned. Did Dea. 
May inform the learned Pastor of this? Undoubtedly. He is 
present and does not deny it. Did the Pastor call? No, and he 
never made or communicated any explanation ; nor did Deacon 
May. He found the case would not admit of it. 

Nor does this account of the matter depend on the testimony 
of Dr. Bemis alone, unsupported by other circumstances. He 
tells you what transpired with Deacon May, to whom the 
whole was recounted. Deacon May was here during the exam- 
ination of Dr. Bemis, and had his eye on him all the^ while he 
was testifying, and was listening to catch every word which fell 
from him ; and if he had varied in a single fact in this statement, 
Dea. May could and would have come forward and denied it. 

Has he done so ? No. It stands proved as true then, that 
here was an invention made by Dr. Bemis, a solemn engagement 
by Mr. Pierpont to keep it secret, when it is entrusted to him, 
and that he divulged it, and suffered it to be sold as his own. 

The learned Pastor does not admit, but allows his counsel to 
deny that there was any confidence reposed in him. But can 
you doubt the testimony of Dr. Bemis, uncontradicted as it is 
by any other evidence, and confirmed as it is by circumstances? 
No reasonable doubt of it can be entertained for a moment. Why 
otherwise, has not the Pastor, through Deacon Brown or Deacon 
May, or some one, complained heretofore against Dr. Bemis, for 
such a gross libel upon his character? Why has he not taken 
some pains, since the story has become public, to call Dr. Bemis 
42 



330 



to account for his representations, and cleared up his own char- 
acter? Why has he avoided an explanation, and shunned Dr. 
Bemis, on whom before he was in the habit of making friendly- 
calls, ever since his account of the transaction was made public 
and came to his ears? 

It is said this hone was no new thing, and therefore the com- 
plaint is groundless. Suppose it was not a new thing, it was 
certainly thought so to be by the inventor, and by Babbit, and 
by the Pastor himself, and others, long after he divulged the 
secret. And admitting something somewhat similar to it had 
been before used in England, did that affect the engagement of 
the learned Pastor, who did not act upon any knowledge or be- 
lief of such fact, or render his conduct at the time less a breach 
of good faith? 

In point of fact, however, it was new, and Bemis was the ori- 
ginal inventor. The English article of 1830 or '31, was a round 
hardened steel, very like the common knife-tickler ; that of Dr. 
Bemis was a flat steel-plate, and was annealed steel — a substan- 
tially and materially different thing. The latter is a good arti- 
cle, and the other of very little value, and not accounted worth a 
patent. 

Much has been said about the long lapse of time, without any 
action on the part of Dr. Bemis. But this has been fully ex- 
plained and accounted for in the testimony. His youth, when 
the invention was first made, the state of his health, and pecu- 
niary ciraumstances, and his desire to bring the thing to perfec- 
tion before giving it to the public, sufficiently account for the 
delay, until by the misconduct of the Pastor the whole secret be- 
came publicly known. But no delay could, under any circum- 
stances, give a right to divulge the secret with which the learned 
Pastor had been thus entrusted, in consequence of a solemn pro- 
mise that he would not make it known to any one. 

There was an attempt, and I thought it not very ingenious, by 
the learned counsel, to show that the paste was the real inven- 
tion, and not the steel hone. The testimony does not sustain it, 
or even give it plausibility. 

The learned Pastor, it seems, claimed to be the inventor of a 
paste which was used with the hones sold as his invention ; but 
for what purpose this paste, which was inferior to that used with 
Mr. Bemis' hone, was substituted for it, I am unable to conjec- 
ture, unless it was to give better countenance to a claim to the 
invention of the hone. 

Both Dr. Bemis and Mr. Babbit say, that the paste of both 
kinds was an old article, which had long been used to sharpen 
instruments. And it clearly appears that it was the flat piece 
of softened steel upon which the paste was to be used, and on 
which various kinds of paste might be used with advantage — 
that was the real invention, and nothing else. And the learned 



331 



Pastor, it seems, at last, and at a very late day, so far did Dr. 
Bemis justice, as to acknowledge to Mr. Babbit that Bemis was 
the inventor, although he now instructs his counsel to contend 
that he is not. 

But it is said that Dr. Bemis did not claim the soft or anneal- 
ed hone. Did he not claim all he had invented? And had he 
not a right to a patent for all he had invented, whether he had 
verbally claimed it or not? He had invented the softened steel 
hone, and when he should take out his patent, his specification, 
if advisedly and properly made, as it undoubtedly would have 
been, would have described his whole invention ; and for this a 
patent would have been granted. 

The question, however, here is, not as to the claim or the 
value of the invention. The material and important questions 
are these. Did the learned Pastor violate an engagement with 
Dr. Bemis, which in honor and good faith, he was bound to ob- 
serve, until released by him ? — And did he not show a conscious- 
ness of this, and a want of Christian conduct, in shunning Mr. 
Bemis, and refusing an explanation, though often promised for 
him by his friends? If these questions are to be answered in the 
affirmative, has not the learned Pastor been wanting in that scru- 
pulous integrity which is necessary to the respectability and use- 
fulness of a Christian minister ? 

These matters are peculiarly within your province, to inquire 
into, weigh and consider. And surely, you will deal with con- 
duct like this, in a Pastor, at least with quite as much severity 
as in a layman it would receive from laymen themselves, You 
certainly will not consider that conduct as exemplary in a Chris- 
tian minister, which would not be regarded as honorable or fair 
in an ordinary man. 

But I will leave this matter, and now proceed to consider 
another departure from strict integrity, in his dealings alleged 
in the specification, which is, his engagement to furnish letters for 
Mr. Clapp. 

Much has been said, on the other side, respecting the unfair- 
ness of this charge, as given in the specification. It is said that 
it speaks of the violation of the of the contract by the Pastor, 
but says nothing of the fact of his paying back the money. It 
does so ; but it is stated in that form, because the paying back 
of the money, and rescinding a mutual contract against the con- 
sent of the other party interested, has nothing to do with the 
fact of perfermance or the obligation to make every possible effort 
to perform the work for which the money had been paid. Pay- 
ing back the agreed price of work contracted for, does not per- 
form the contract, nor release it, nor absolve the engagement, in 
law or sound morals. Was the agreement with Mr. Clapp, that 
he should furnish the letters from Europe or pay back the 



332 



money? No ; it was not so. # The Pastor held forth the idea that 
he should be absent about a year, and would on an average, write 
one letter a week within a year, for each of which he was to be 
allowed five dollars, and if he should not be able to write quite 
that number, or it should happen that he should return a little 
before that time, then that he would refund the balance of the 
money which he had received in advance, above what should be 
due to him at that rate. The substantial contract was, that if 
he should be able to do it, these letters on these terms should be 
written. He received the money, or rather bills from which he 
obtained it in advance in full for the performance of the entire 
contract ; but he did not write nor, as far as appears, make any 
attempt to write even one of these letters ; for the letter from 
Rome can hardly be regarded as one. 

His main excuse is not illness or physical inability, although 
illness is mentioned, but that he did not stay long enough 
in one place to take sufficient notes. And from the evidence 
you will judge whether this can be true. The learned counsel, 
on the other side, has alluded to the letter which has been lost, 
and has expressed a wish fot the sake of the Pastor, that it could 
be produced. But we think it is our misfortune that it was lost, 
for it seems probable that it contained another groundless reason, 
touching this matter. Something was said in it, as the wit- 
ness thinks according to his best recollection of a cordon sani- 
taire, which prevented the transmission of letters — and the wit- 
ness believes this was stated as one of the reasons why no letters 
were sent. If so, that is asserted as a fact, and given as a reason 
which did not, and which the learned Pastor must have known 
did not then exist ; for you have it from Mr. Tappan that the 
cordon sanitaire was removed before he reached Europe, and 
there was thereafter no interruption to correspondence ; and this 
letter respecting the cordon sanitaire was written when he and 
the Pastor were at Rome. The learned Pastor in short was un- 
der an engagement, legal and honorable, to write these letters. 
Has he given a satisfactory reason why he did not perform the 
engagement, or make a reasonable effort to do so ? He some- 
times pleads generally his inability ; and to show the probability 



* The agreement runs as follows : — 

"Having this day received the acceptance of Wm. W. Clapp, for one hun- 
dred and twenty-five dollars, payable in three months, and also his accept- 
ance for one hundred and twenty-five dollars, payable in six months from 
this date, " for value received," — this witnesses that the consideration for 
those acceptances is the addressing to him of letters from abroad — to average 
about one a week during my absence on a voyage to Europe. If less than 
that shall be written during my absence, or if 1 shall return before the 
$250 are exhausted, at the rate of five dollars each — then I am to repay to 
him the amount of such deficiency after my return. 

J. P1ERPONT. 

Boston, 3d Oct. 1835." 



333 



of the fact, his counsel asks why a poor clergyman, with a family 
to support, should return the money, if he was able to perform 
the contract? Sir, we can no more easily account for this, than 
for many of his eccentricities. He may have reasons of which 
he has not informed us. All we can say is, that the reasons he 
has assigned, seem to be founded either in mistake or falsehood, 
or in admission of the main fact. He is not consistent with him- 
self, in his defence. Sometimes he says he has performed the 
contract according to the spirit of it — at other times, he admits he 
has not, and says he did not stay to take notes, so as to perform it. 
One plea is, that he sent back the money — but that, I repeat, is not 
a compliance with the contract ; that does not relieve Mr. Clapp 
from the mortification and loss of having publicly promised an 
interesting series of letters from a distinguished writer abroad, 
and on the faith of that promise, obtained numerous subscribers 
to his readers, and then having been obliged to fail in his own 
promise, and to seem to have made it on too slight grounds. 
We contend that there was no physical inability, and that, with 
a proper effort, he might have fulfilled his contract. This is evi- 
denced by the letters which he did in fact write. We do not rest 
this on the mere fact that he wrote to his family, and it is not of 
mere family letters of which we speak. But he wrote long, de- 
scriptive letters to his family, some of which, if you believe Mr. 
Hay and Mr. Crane, took hours in the reading, and which, omit- 
ting the small portion of a private nature, would in their opinion, 
have been highly interesting to the public in a newspaper. The 
fact that he wrote these long letters, descriptive of the scenes 
and places he witnessed and visited abroad, prove that he re- 
mained long enough in some places to take notes and write letters 
such as he had promised to Mr. Clapp. His counsel, it seems, 
is instructed to say, in excuse for this, that he wrote these letters 
after he had returned the money ; but this, as I have already 
said, did not exonerate him from the obligation to write, and the 
concession it contains proves that he might well have written let- 
ters for Mr. Clapp within the time in which he engaged to write, 
that is, hefore his return. Now, whatever may have been the 
consequence of this breach of engagement, merely in a pecuniary 
view, and even if in this light it did not appear to be a matter of 
sufficient importance to be strenuously insisted upon, yet in a 
general view of it, not as standing by itself, and aside from the 
other similar instances of breaches of good faith, but in connec- 
tion with the circumstances attending it, and the reasons given 
for it, it tends to show that the conduct of the learned Pastor, 
not only remains without sufficient explanation, but, with th^se 
other departures from rectitude, fully substantiates the general 
charge, that he has been wanting in that scrupulous integrity 
which is necessary to the respectability and usefulness of a min- 
ister of the gospel. 

I now come to the charge of a want of scrupulous regard to 



334 



truth, which is another distinct and general ground of complaint. 
I shall first advert to those instances of want of veracity, which 
have occurred in his written or printed correspondence. 

In his letter of Oct. 22, 1839, addressed to the Minority of the 
Committee, expressly for publication, the learned Pastor says: 
" In my second letter, dated Oct. 7, (referring to a letter of that 
date, addressed to the Society, not then published,) I demand a 
Mutual Council to try that issue, and to settle all matters in con- 
troversy between us^ 

Now let us stop there and examine the letter of Oct. 7. Do 
you find any such thing in it? No. There is not a word said in 
that letter about settling all matters in controversy; it speaks on- 
ly about trying the single question whether the temperance cause 
was the main cause of the difficulty. There was a reason for this 
misrepresentation. The Pastor had an object to accomplish by it. 
It should be recollected that at the time the letter of Oct. 22d, 
was written, and published by him, it was highly important to the 
learned Pastor to make it appear to the public, that he had not 
tendered merely an immaterial issue, as to the temperance cause, 
as being the main cause of the difficulty, but that he had offered 
something more material and reasonable, that is, to submit all 
matters of difference to a mutual Council. His object was evi- 
dently to throw odium upon his opponents by causing it to be be- 
lieved that they had objected to a reasonable offer. 

Now did he in fact, with this object in view, in his letter of Oct. 
22d, 1839, publish and declare that to be in his letter of Oct. 7, 
which he knew was not there? Did he aim when treating with 
his Parish, for a Council, to confine the matter to the immaterial 
issue whether the temperance cause was the head and front of 
his offending, a matter which by itself no Council would meet to 
settle, and when he came before the public, endeavor to make it 
appear that he had fairly offered a mutual Council upon the whole 
merits of the controversy, when he knew, in fact, that no such 
offer had been made; and so undertake to publish to the world in 
his pamphlet, that it was not his fault, but that of the Proprietors, 
thata mutual Council, to settle all matters, had not been agreed 
on, and send this impression forth as the true view of the 
real state of facts between him and his Society? If so, was 
there candor, or fairness or a strict regard to truth in this? He 
does say, directly, and distinctly, in this publication, that he had 
himself, in his letter of Oct. 7, offered a mutual Council on all 
matters of difference, and you will say whether he asserts this in 
total disregard of the truth, and what he knew to be the truth, for 
he undoubtedly deliberately wrote one letter with the other before 
him, and affirmed that the former contained the very proposal 
which it evaded, and did not contain. 

Now, sir, the learned Pastor knew, as well as any man living, 
the force of language, and is as cautious as any man in the use 
of it, when it serves his purpose to be so. He putsj nothing to 



335 



writing without great regard to the nicety and meaning of lan- 
guage. He seems to pride himself on finding hidden meanings 
where others do not; and can this assertion in the letter of Oct. 
22d, be reasonably attributed to a slip of the pen ? 

No, sir, you must, I think, be satisfied, that tt must have been 
designedly made, knowing all the facts, and ingeniously and de- 
liberately misrepresenting them to answer his own sinister pur- 
poses. 

The misrepresentation does not stop here. He goes on to say, 
in the same published letter of Oct. 22d, 1839, ''appended to that 
letter, and offered for your consideration immediately after it, by 
Mr. James Boyd, at my request, were the preamble and votes, of 
which the following is a copy indicating a way for the final settle- 
ment of our present controversy." 

[Then follow the preamble and votes which Mr. Boyd offered. 
See pages 127 and 128.] 

Now, sir, it undoubtedly seemed important to him to state that 
the preamble and votes were appended to that letter, so that it 
might appear that they were known to the Parish, at the time of 
their acting upon that letter, by being, as he would have it un- 
derstood by the public, a part of that letter, coming directly from 
him, and so that the Parish should appear to have no excuse for 
not having seen and understood the proposition, not as Mr. Boyd's 
merely, but as the Pastor's, and forming a part of an appendage to 
his letter. He, therefore, represents the preamble and votes as 
openly known to be his at the time, and as appended to his letter, 
when it seems he knew they were not appended to it in any sense 
in which that word could be understood; for he surely too well 
knows the force and meaning of language, and is too careful in the 
use of it, s© to misapply it by mistake or without purpose; and when 
so far from being appended to the Pastor's letter, it was not nor 
could have been nor was intended to be known, at the meeting, 
that they came from him at all, or were offered with his approval; 
and when it was carefully concealed that they were originally in 
his hand-writing, — and when they were presented in the hand- 
writing of Mr. Boyd, as if to prevent their being traced to the 
learned Pastor — and when moreover the letter itself was pre- 
sented through a different channel. The resolves were pre- 
sented by Mr. Boyd, as coming from hirn, and without any inti- 
mation that they offered a proposition which the Pastor had made 
„ or requested to be made. The letter of Oct. the 7th, on the 
other hand was not presented by Mr. Boyd or at the same time, 
but had been previously sent to the clerk who read it to the So- 
- ciety. And besides the resolves introduced by Mr. Boyd were to 
be taken as a proposition coming from the Society to the Pastor, 
and not from him to them. 

[Adjourn till 9 o'clock to-morrow morning.] 



336 



Friday Morning, July 23. 

Mr Rand resumed his argument. 

When this Council adjourned yesterday, I was commenting 
upon the written statements of the learned Pastor, wherein as 
we contend he has not had a scrupulous regard to truth. 

We contend in this matter as to the offer of a Mutual Council, 
that the learned Pastor has made statements in writing, that ac- 
cording to a reasonable interpretation of his language are not true, 
in order seemingly for a sinister purpose, to give a different im- 
pression to the public from that which the real state of the facts 
did warrant. I was about to show when you adjourned, that the 
Pastor did not state the truth when he represented the proposition 
to call a Council to settle all matters between him and his Parish 
as having been made by him to the Parish ; and that that proposition 
was not made at all by him to be put to the Parish meeting as a 
proposition of his own. For this I refer you to his letters of 'Oct. 
7, and Oct 22, and to the evidence. In his argument against the 
jurisdiction of this Council, as an ex-parte Council heretofore, I be- 
lieve, he gave some reason why the preamble and votes which he 
admits containing the only proposition made, were not sent as his 
own, which was in substance, as I understood him, that it was 
thought that it would be more acceptable if it were understood to 
come from Mr Boyd than from himself. 

The absurdity of alleging now, that these, that is the preamble 
and votes offered by Mr Boyd, were appended to the letter of the 
learned Pastor, or intended to be understood at the time, as offered 
by the Pastor as a part of the proposition in the letter, is manifest, 
as I think I have already shown from the fact that the letter was 
sent by one person, and the preamble and votes were offered by 
another person, in that person's hand writing as proceeding from 
that person himself, as if to conceal the connexion of the Pastor 
with the preamble and votes. 

From Mr Boyd's testimony it appears that when he offered these 
resolutions, he did not present them as a proposition from Mr 
Pierpont or his friends. On the contrary, he said at the Parish 
meeting when he proposed them, " that he brought them forward not 
so much from any desire on the part of the friends of Mr Pierpont 
that they should be passed, as from that of showing a willingness 
on their part to join the opposition in adopting the only measure by 
which the difficulties could be brought to a close, unless the oppo- 
sition should fall into a minority." But " if these votes were taken 
up by the opposition, he would promise the support of a sufficient 
number of the friends of Mr Pierpont, to carry the measure proposed 
by them into operation." 

So that Mr Boyd in fact said, that neither the Pastor nor his 
friends proposed these votes, as coming from them, but that he, 
Mr Boyd proposed them, for the opposition to adopt, as their propo- 
sition to the Pastor. 



337 



The resolves themselves, make the matter more clear. They 
are framed for the society to adopt and refer to the letter of the 7th 
October in a way to lead to the supposition that it contained the 
only offer made on the part of the Pastor, which at the former 
hearing the learned Pastor admitted did not contain any proposal 
of a Mutual Council to settle all matters in controversy between 
him and his Parish. 

How then can it be true as is now asserted by the learned Pastor, 
that the proposition was made by himself in his letter of October 7, 
or appended to his letter, so as to be a part of it ? 

These are the words, 44 a year ago last October, at their meeting 
on the 7th of that month, I tendered to the Proprietors of Hollis 
Street Meeting House a Mutual Council " whose decision should 
be conclusive, final and forever binding upon both parties" among 
other matters upon these points, namely, 1st, whether by reason 
of anything that I had done or left undone in relation the temper- 
ance cause or any other cause, that the connection between the 
Society and myself ought to be dissolved ? and 2dly, if for any 
cause whatever the relation between the Society and myself ought 
to be dissolved, what were the terms and conditions on which that 
dissolution should take place ?" In this proposal I trust that the 
body I now address will see a disposition on my part to " put an 
end to strife." This proposal was rejected. The Committee to 
whom it was referred, reporting on the 14th of the same month, 
in these words, " to the proposition of choosing a Council we 
object, there being in our opinion nothing for such a Council to 
settle." 

" The chairman of that Committee who framed and presented 
that report, is the chairman of the Committee by which the 
Churches here represented, have been called together, and one 
other member of this Committee is the only surviving member 
of that." 

" I make this statement that these churches may see which of the 
two parties was the first to make and which the first to reject the 
offer of a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council to decide conclusively 
upon all matters in controversy between them." 

Again in his remonstrance to the Ex-parte Council, printed at 
his request, he says " it was rejected by the opposition." This is 
a deliberate reiteration made in his printed letter addressed through 
his friends to the public, namely, that he tendered a Mutual 
Council upon all matters in controversy, which he claims as evi- 
dence of a disposition on his part to put an end to strife, but which 
he says they rejected. 

Now it is apparent from the records, that this proposition was 
not rejected by the opponents of the Pastor. That report of the 
Committee was never acted upon. Another report was subsequently 
introduced, not by the opponents but by this same Mr Boyd on 
behalf of the friends of Mr Pierpont, who were then in a majority, 
and they and not the opposition laid aside the report and the reso- 
43 



338 



lutions of Mr Boyd. So that these resolutions were in fact, with- 
drawn virtually by Mr Boyd himself and never acted upon by 
either party. If they were rejected by anybody or disposed of by 
anybody, it was by the friends of Mr Pierpont and not by his oppo- 
nents. How then can the learned Pastor say with truth, that they 
were rejected by the opposition as he would have this Council and 
the public to understand ? 

It appears then in fine, if my view of the evidence be correct, 
and of this you will judge, that the Pastor in order to make an 
impression on the public mind favorable to himself, and unfavorable 
to the Society has deliberately stated in writing and published to 
the world, that he made a proposal to the Society to submit ail 
matters in controversy between him and the Society, to a Mutual 
Ecclesiastical Council when he knew that he had made no such 
offer — that such a proposal was contained in his letter to the 
Society of Oct. 7, when he knew that no such proposal was con- 
tained therein — that a certain preamble and votes offered by Mr 
Boyd, were appended to that letter, when he knew that so far 
from being appended or attached to the letter, they did not even 
accompany it — that those votes were offered as a proposition 
coming from him, when he most probably knew that it was pur- 
posely concealed, that he had any agency in preparing them or 
knowledge of them — and that they were rejected by his oppo- 
nents, when he knew that they were virtually withdrawn by his 
friend, Mr Boyd, who offered them and were never acted upon by 
the Society. 

Under the same general head, Mr Moderator, permit me to 
advert to one or two other matters in the printed correspondence of 
the Pastor, that seem to show a want of a nice regard to truth. — 
At page 15 of the learned Pastor's letter of Oct. 22d, he alludes 
to the " wooden screws" and says " this I suppose refers to some 
aid, by counsel or otherwise, which I rendered a brother of mine, 
several years ago, in bringing to perfection a machine for the 
manufacture of that useful article, the wood screw. The waters 
of Lake Erie closed over my brother, while his machine was 
incomplete, and his enterprise and his life, were' lost to the world 
together." 

Critical and nice, as the learned Pastor has been in this corres- 
pondence, we might have expected more regard for truth, than he 
has here shown, in giving the public a right understanding of the 
facts. 

In the sentence I have quoted, the learned Pastor first gives out 
the impression that he was not at all interested with his brother in 
the screw business, and second, that the enterprise was a valuable 
one, and was not perfected in consequence of the unfortunate death 
of his brother. All this was undoubtedly designed to excite the 
sympathy of the public, and create an impression favorable to 
himself. 



339 



But what are the facts ? Mr Fairbanks testifies that the Rever- 
end Pastor had an interest in the screws, and entered into engage- 
ments, in expectation of profitable results, to the amount of $6000, 
or more, which on the failure of the project, he paid by the pro- 
ceeds of his books, another secular occupation in which he was 
engaged. 

Then as to the enterprise itself, Mr Fairbanks tells you that it 
wholly failed, was a total loss and failure, and was valueless. 

Now, Mr Moderator, compare the statement of the Pastor with 
that of Mr Fairbanks, and see if it is possible that both can be 
correct. 

Another instance of want of scrupulous regard for truth in the 
written correspondence, occurs on the 19th and 20th pages of the 
published letter, of November 12, 1840, written undoubtedly with 
a view to be published, where the Pastor is speaking of one of the 
specifications under the general charge of a want of scrupulous 
integrity. 

The Pastor there says " It seems to me that the work of cleans- 
ing Hollis Street Pulpit, should be undertaken by men whose own 
hands are clean. But how is this?" He then alludes to the 
charge of disregarding his engagement with Mr Clapp, to write 
the letters from Europe, and says " that statement, in the view 
both of morality and law, is utterly false ; false in the impression 
it makes and was meant to make ; false in spirit ; false in every 
thing but the letter. I do say that it is thus false, and that it was 
known to be so by one member of your body whose name is 
signed to your own grounds of complaint. I deliberately affirm 
and repeat that one man at your board knows that that statement 
is thus false, and that he knew it to be false when he gave it to 
your Counsel and your Board. So of all the rest of those vile v 
specifications affecting my integrity and veracity. Bring me 
where I can confront the witnesses by which you have even 
hoped to prove them, and I will brand '•false'' upon the fore- 
head of every one of them with a stamp that shall burn to the 
bone." 

The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn by any one unac- 
quainted with the facts from these strong asservations of the learned 
Pastor, is that Mr Clapp knew when he made the charge that every 
word he had stated in relation to the Pastor's violation of his 
contract to write letters from Europe was essentially and utterly 
false, and that the whole charge, in substance, was a base lie. 

What are the facts ? The Pastor, when he affirmed this, knew 
what is here proved, that he had signed a contract with Mr Clapp 
to furnish the letters, had received the money for it, in acceptances 
which he had negotiated, and had not performed his engagement ; 
and although illness for a small part of the time, has been men- 
tioned, his principal excuse in his letter was, and now is, that he 
did not stay long enough in any place to take notes ; and that he 
returned the money. 



340 



I have already shown you that this, as he sometimes admits, 
was no performance of the contract, and that there was no just or 
reasonable excuse for the non-performance. And even if in 
charity, you could think the pretended excuse justifiable, would it 
follow that Mr Glapp must have so considered it, and that he was 
guilty of falsehood in not so stating it ? 

With what truth then, could the learned Pastor charge Mr Clapp 
with deliberately stating that which he knew to be utterly or essen- 
tially false ? 

He had the best evidence of the agreement, the written contract 
to show, and he had the proof of the failure to perform it, on grounds 
never denied satisfactory by himself, the party injured. 

And from the evidence you will judge with what shadow of 
reason or truth the learned Pastor could make that general asser- 
tion just read to you, that it was so of all the rest of the charges 
affecting his integrity and veracity, conveying the idea that they 
were equally false and were known to be so when made. 

And now upon the trial if any person or thing in this controver- 
sy, has been " branded with a stamp that will burn to the bone," 
it is for you and the public to determine on what and on whom, by 
the testimony, that stamp has been impressed. 

I will now proceed, Mr Moderator, to another allegation under 
this same general head, which is, that^e has written a prize poem 
at the opening of the Tremout Theatre, and denied it, under cir- 
cumstances where he was bound in honor to disclose it, and where 
evasion or prevarication was equivalent to falsehood. 

There can be no doubt that the learned Pastor was the author 
of that poem. I am confident there is not a member of this Coun- 
cil who entertains the slightest doubt of that fact. 

It has been too clearly shewn by the testimony to admit of any 
reasonable doubt. His application personally, to Mr Buckingham, 
his letters from Hartford, the prologue in his hand writing, his 
receiving the prize money, as the author, from the hands of Mr 
Buckingham according to his previous understanding with him, 
his never alluding to any other person as the real or supposed 
author, and his never denying the authorship, except to Mr Sprague, 
demonstrate so clearly that he was the author, that I should seem 
to call in question your understandings, to argue so plain a fact, 
and I confess I did not expect therefore, to hear the learned Coun- 
sel for the Pastor, intimate that he could come to any different con- 
clusion from the testimony. 

But yet the learned Counsel did attempt notwithstanding, to 
evade the force of the testimony on this point, supposing that some 
unknown person was in the confidence of Mr Pierpont, and that 
for this reason, the poem was in Mr Pierpont's hand writing, that 
is to screen his mysterious friend. But what says Mr Sprague to 
this ? Why what every reasonable man would say, that the learned 
Pastor would be the last man in the world under the circumstances 



341 



to assume that trust ; and certainly in such case, he would be the 
last man to copy it into his own hand writing for concealment. 
But, nevertheless, if this had been the case, he would have been 
involved in no such difficulty as now embarrasses him, and put to no 
necessity of denial or evasion. He could in that case, frankly 
have said that it was intrusted to him by a friend, the real author, 
who had reasons for wishing not to be known. He would thus 
have exculpated both himself and the committee. 

And surely if this had been the fact, the learned Pastor must 
have seen that nothing was easier than to have stated it, and relieved 
Mr Sprague and the rest of the committee who the learned Pastor 
well knew were oppressed by and writhing under false, injurious 
and very heavy charges from the public press, affecting their 
integrity. And as a man and a christian, it would have been his 
duty so to have done. But the learned Pastor himself, has never 
made any such pretence. Pie has never ventured himself to make 
the suggestion. 

And still his learned Counsel pertinaciously continued to suggest 
and argue that the Pastor might, nevertheless, have been intrusted 
with this poem by a friend who had bound him to secrecy, and 
therefore he could not disclose ; and he called upon this Council 
to acquit the learned Pastor of this grave charge on the ground 
that it was only necessary for them to suppose there was some 
unknown third person, standing in the same relation to Mr 
Pierpont in this transaction, as he did to Mr Buckingham. 

I confess that this course of argument, under the circumstances, 
seemed most extraordinary, and the counsel for the Proprietors put 
the question directly to the counsel for the Pastor, whether he was 
instructed to put the case in that form by the learned Pastor him- 
self, or to deny that he was the author. The counsel for the Pas- 
tor declined answering, and said the evidence satisfied him that his 
client was not the author ; and when upon his assertion that Mr 
Bailey to his death never knew Mr Pierpont to be the author, my 
colleague pressed the learned counsel to declare whether he made 
that assertion as his own or that of the Pastor, he replied that he 
spoke only as to his belief founded on the evidence. 

And Mr Moderator, during this dialogue there near his counsel 
sat the learned Pastor, who knew that one word from himself of 
frank admission or direct denial, would have relieved his counsel 
from his embarrassment and perhaps have put the matter at rest, 
but like a culprit at the bar he was silent, and permitted supposi- 
tion and argument and hypothesis to be used as facts in a matter 
where the whole truth was in his own breast, and for concealing 
which, he gives no plausible reason. 

I say, then, that the authorship of that prize poem, is distinctly 
fixed upon him, beyond all reasonable doubt or denial. But then, 
the learned counsel for the Pastor, unwilling to rest his case on this 
ground, says he did not, in terms, deny the authorship to Mr 



342 



Sprague ; — that he only evaded the question. The answer to this 
is plain. His language was substantially a denial ; he intended it 
to be understood as a denial, and he knew that Mr Sprague receiv- 
ed it as a denial. The question is not to turn on the mere literal 
meaning of the words he used, but upon that meaning which he 
intended to convey by them. If his words, in one sense might be 
true, and yet if he intended to have them read and understood in 
another sense, or to hold forth a different idea, by the manner and 
occasion of using them, in order to mislead, and give a false im- 
pression, then he was guilty of falsehood as clearly as if he had 
met the inquiry by a direct, distinct, and positive denial. 

Intentional falsehood, or a lie, surely does not depend solely on 
the words, spoken. It is such a falsehood to point knowingly to the 
wrong road with intent to deceive the traveller who is inquiring the 
way, and so far as religion and morality are concerned, it is a de- 
liberate lie. The intent to deceive or mislead, is the essence of 
wilful falsehood. Did the learned Pastor, then, knowing the fact 
whether he was or was not the author of that prologue, intentionally 
answer Mr Sprague's inquiry so as to mislead and deceive him, as 
to the fact, and did he intend so to deceive him, and persist in it 
after he knew he was deceived, by taking his answer as a denial ? 
This is the tree question. And if it be answered in the affirmative, 
there can be but one opinion of the character of the transaction : 
the learned Pastor, to say the least, is certainly chargeable with a 
want of a scrupulous regard for truth. 

And besides, if the learned Pastor was the author of the Prologue, 
whether he wrote it one year or two years, or two months only, or 
at whatever other time before he gave this answer to Mr Sprague, 
permit me to ask you to consider in what predicament he now 
stands ? He neither distinctly admits, nor denies, but refers to his 
former answer, and leaves you to conjecture. But now I ask if it 
is creditable to a Christian Minister, who is to set an example of 
frankness, integrity, uprightness and truth to his flock, to sit here, 
in your presence, and in the face of these facts, and suffer his 
counsel to suppose, and conjecture, and equivocate, and evade 
when the direct question is put to him whether he is instructed by 
his Reverend client to disclaim the authorship, and to call for your 
decision in his favor, on the ground that the fact is not made out by 
direct testimony, when from the circumstances, nobody doubts but 
he was the author. This dodging and skulking behind counsel for 
protection — this attempting to convince you, by silence, and eva- 
sion that a fact does not exist which, the intelligent witness Mr 
Sprague says, is as well known as your existence, is equivalent to a 
reassertion, and is a great aggravation of the original falsehood. 

As to the prologue itself, it is quite unnecessary that I should say 
any thing. It was written and sent obviously for the express pur- 
pose of being spoken on the occasion of the dedication of a place, 
where at the time it was supposed that more or less of the com- 



343 



mandments of the decalogue were habitually broken ; and consid- 
ering the pointed allusions which it contained, it will be for you to 
say whether with good grace and strict propriety it could come 
from the pen of a preacher of the gospel. With these remarks, I 
leave that part of the case. 

It is not unimportant, Mr Moderator, under this general head, to 
remark that in other respects, on other occasions, and in regard to 
other matters, the learned Pastor does not stand free from grave 
suspicions of having held the truth in too light an estimation. He 
has been found repeating his story relative to Wyman, if our testi- 
mony is to be believed, after he had been informed by Mr Child, 
Deacon May, and others, that it was not true ; and he has been 
reported in the New York Journal of Commerce, according to 
his own admission, as having, in a speech at Saratoga Springs, 
spoken of dealers in ardent spirits as felons, which he has taken 
pains to deny. That report was made by an accurate and 
practised reporter, who could have had no motive to misrepresent 
the language of the learned Pastor, and who, it may be pre- 
sumed, would not have been likely to invent so strong and un- 
usual an expression, if it had not been used. The learned Pas- 
tor, on finding it had produced a great excitement here, contradict- 
ed it from the pulpit and elsewhere, and continues to contradict it. 
But that contradiction rests on his personal assertion alone. He 
admits that the truth of it has been doubted. He has taken no 
pains to verify it. You have, therefore, the assertion of the prac- 
tised, and as far as appears, important Reporter on one side, and 
the denial of the Pastor on the other. It is undoubtedly true that 
reporters are somtimes incorrect, from omitting to notice or misun- 
derstanding part of what is said, but it seems from the evidence that 
the learned Pastor has also been incorrect in other particulars, and 
especially as to the language used in his sermons, if you give credit 
to the testimonies of our witnesses, and it hardly seems reasonable 
to suppose that such an extraordinary expression would have been 
adopted by this practised reporter, if it had not, at least in substance, 
been made. 

I trust I may be allowed in this connection, to ask you to say, 
touching the written correspondence of the Pastor, so far as candor 
and a scrupulous regard to truth are concerned, whether there has 
not been a want of ingenuousness, directness, and common fairness 
in the whole of the correspondence, on his part, now before you, 
since this controversy arose down to the present time, a cunning 
ambiguity in phraseology, and a quibbling evasion and equivo- 
cation that would be disreputable to a man of integrity in ordinary 
concerns — I had almost said to a pettifogger — and which is surely 
more especially derogatory to the character of a clergyman ? 

Is there, indeed in the conduct and correspondence of the learned 
Pastor, that plain, open, direct and upright demeanor towards his 
Parish which becomes a Christian Minister ? Does not much of 
his correspondence seem to have been written more with a view to 



344 



its effect on others than his Society, than with a desire to conform 
it strictly to a candid exposition of the facts. And in this whole 
controversy does he not seem to have acted as a partizan of other 
combinations or sects rather than as the Minister of his own So- 
ciety ? Does not the end seem to have been regarded rather than 
the means ? If ministers are thus to conduct, and be sustained or 
countenanced by the members of their profession, it will not be 
long before the people of this country at least, will cease to have 
any respect for, or interest in the Clergy, as teachers of piety, re- 
ligion, and the Christian virtues. 

In the first letter of the learned Pastor to the Parish, which in an 
after letter, he styles his dilatory plea, there was a great want of in- 
genuousness in the language he used. His object evidently was to 
pacify those who were disaffected. And we must bear in mind the 
purpose and motive with which the letter was written. There had 
been complaints as to his manner of preaching and particularly on 
certain exciting topics, and as to his neglect of his parochial duties — 
for other pursuits. A committee of conference was raised to con- 
fer with him on this subject. A long conversation was had, and 
it was understood that the Pastor promised not only verbally, but by 
his letter, and afterwards from the pulpit, that he would change his 
course — alter his manner — devote his time to his parochial duties, 
and endeavor to conform to the wishes of his Society so far as it 
regarded the matters of complaint. I need not read that letter, it 
has been repeatedly quoted, and is familiar to the Council. I will 
refer you particularly, however, to some few parts of it and leave 
you to peruse the rest, so far as you may deem it necessary for a 
better understanding of what I shall read. 

[Mr Rand here read the following extracts from the letter of 
Sept. 20, 1838.] 

" My opinion has been, that, by listening- to the calls that have been 
made upon me in the course of events, or the providence of God, and act- 
ing in a somewhat wider field, embracing a greater variety of topics, no 
less good might be done, directly or indirectly, to those who fell within, 
while more good would be done to those who lay without, the circle of my 
own peculiar people. Their opinion is different. They believe that my 
walks should be more restricted, and my rounds consequently more fre- 
quent among them ; and that the topics in which I show an interest should 
be more limited in number. 

" Now I think that those of the Proprietors of the church who have been 
habitually my hearers, will do me the justice to say that I have never af- 
fected infallibility of judgment upon any topic ; and when the question is, 
in what way that can be done best which all think ought to be done, I feel, 
not bound merely, but, most ready to show great deference to the opinions 
and faithful counsels of those around me in the religious Society in whose 
prosperity and moral improvement we have all a common interest. 

"In the votes which you have laid before me, by direction of the Soci- 
ety, is expressed the opinion of ' many' of its members, that some of the 
measures that I have hitherto pursued to that end, are not wisely chosen 
'to promote peace on earth and good will among men.' 



345 



" Though I have often, heretofore, been favored with the counsel of in- 
dividuals among my people — counsel by which I doubt not that I have been 
saved from many missteps — yet this is the first official expression of the 
opinion of the Society, with which I have ever been favored, in respect to 
the measures that I have adopted, or ought to adopt, in order to effect the 
great object of my ministry among them. This expression of their views 
is entitled to, and I assure you, gentlemen, shall receive my most respect- 
ful attention. I feel that it is due both to them and to myself." 

######## 

"I understand it as an expression of their opinion as to some of the 
means that I have adopted, in the prosecution of my ministry, in reference 
to its object. 

" Now, in regard to these, I have not unfrequently had misgivings my- 
self, ever since I have stood in my present relation to them. Knowing 
that my meaning was right, I have often doubted whether my means were 
the best ; and, compelled often to act promptly — as every one sometimes 
must, who acts with any effect — I have never doubted that, in many cases, 
had I done differently, it would have been better both for me and for my 
cause. Indeed, I have had so many proofs of the fallibility of my judg- 
ment, in respect to the practical details of my profession, that I have come 
greatly to distrust it. 

" I shall therefore look, with great deference, to the known judgments of 
a large number of my people, and divide with them, most, willingly, the 
responsibility of those errors, which, in the judgment of men, I may com- 
mit in so doing." 

" If, therefore, I have entered too earnestly or too exclusively into a few 
topics that, from the circumstances in which, in these days, we are all 
called to act, have become particularly ' exciting,' to the neglect of others 
equally important and more peculiarly within my own province, it cannot 
be to my people a matter of deeper regret than it is to me ; and I shall 
faithfully endeavor to recall all undue attention from the former topics, and 
confine to the latter what they may rightfully claim." 

Now Sir, considering the circumstances under which the letter 
was written, and the persons by whom, and the persons to whom it 
was addressed, persons not expecting intricacy, duplicity or con- 
cealed meaning in the language, but who had full confidence in the 
honesty and ingenuousness of their Pastor, was it right was it ex- 
cusable, was it not highly culpable in him to use language suscep- 
tible in fair minds, of precisely the opposite meaning to that which 
the Pastor now chooses to give to that letter ? How would they 
naturally understand it, and how did he, at the time, suppose they 
understood it ? The question is not what possible construction it 
may bear, but what was the plain, common sense construction, that 
common sense men would put upon it ? And how did he intend 
they should understand it ? These are the true considerations, to 
test whether there has been a want of frankness, ingenuousness, 
and ordinary candor in the matter. It was undoubtedly received 
and understood, by those who had complained of the Pastor, as a 
promise and pledge that he would change his course. Whatever 
ambiguity of language he may have used they understood him to 
44 



346 



reiterate that promise in his Sermon, though he afterwards denied 
it. He must have known that they would, and intended that they 
should so understand it, or he certainly would have written and 
spoken in more distinct terms. And it seemed, for a time, that he 
really intended so to understand it himself, and to shape his course 
accordingly. And it answered its purpose while he did so. It re- 
conciled the complainants. 

But yet he afterwards in his letter of Sept. 16th, 1839, denies 
that he ever had advanced any such idea, or intended to be so un- 
derstood ; and resorts to his usual subterfuge — quibbling with the 
terms of his former letter, and positively denying what he had said 
orally from the pulpit and elsewhere to the same effect, as has been 
established by the testimony of several witnesses. Now if he did 
not so understand what he said and wrote, or so mean to change 
his course, and was willing, by a seeming confession, to throw his 
opponents off their guard, and secure his place by appearing to say 
what he did not really mean, what was such conduct but prevarica- 
tion and gross deception ? Can it be consistent with that fairness 
and honesty and scrupulous regard for truth which ought to be 
found in the character of a Christian minister ? 

Again in his letter of Sept. 15, 1839, when there was apparently 
a majority in his favor, he says " It is for the Proprietors of Hollis 
Street Church, as a body, to say whether I shall any longer hold 
the place to which, as a body, they long ago called me. Because 
it chose to do so, the Society, as a corporate act, asked me to come. 
When it shall choose — to night if it choose, it will ask me to go." 
" And at their bidding I can heartily part with them and wish them 
peace." 

This was, in effect, an offer to go if a majority should be desirous 
he should go. It could not fairly be otherwise understood. And 
it seems he did come to this conclusion, when a majority made the 
request that he would leave them. And on this occasion he wrote 
his letter of resignation. But unfortunately he was persuaded by 
his friends to hold it back, and he then to justify himself, wrote the 
letters of Oct. 7, 1839 and March 23, 1840, in the former of which 
he declares that he never did propose to go, if a majority were 
against him and should vote to have him go, and in the latter de- 
claring that he will not go on their request and that they cannot 
displace him by wishing him away. 

I ask then is there not in this, such trifling with the truth, such 
equivocation, and that sort of double dealing, which is not creditable 
to any honest man and much less to a Christian Minister ? As 
christian ministers and representatives of the christian churches, 
you will determine. 

And I beg you also to advert to his negociations and transactions 
as to the calling of a Mutual Council, that you may see if they do 
not seem to partake of the same character. I refer you to them 
and ask you as upright men, whether considering his attempt to 



347 



limit the powers of the council by asserting that the Parish had 
agreed to that to which he had good reason to know they had never 
given their assent — his objection to the addition to the specifica- 
tions after he had assented and tacitly agreed to it — his procuring, 
(for it was undoubtedly done under his advice) Letters Missive to 
be issued to the churches under what seems to have been a ground- 
less suggestion, — and his whole correspondence and conduct in this 
matter, on the whole, does exhibit that ingenuousness or directness 
in language and conduct which a Christian Minister ought to exer- 
cise in dealing with his people or even with the community ? 
And here I will leave with you this general ground of complaint. 

I will now proceed to another distinct ground of complaint, that 
is, an occasional and not unfrequent indelicacy in statements and 
allusions in his public ministry and elsewhere. 

After the facts testified to as having occurred in a funeral 
prayer, (at the death of Mrs Stewart) we may be prepared to 
expect from the learned Pastor almost any extravagances of ex- 
pression. The testimony, as to indelicacy, proves the utterance of 
sentiments and allusions in public, which the witness says he should 
not like to hear in private in his parlor, and these expressions it 
seems were so grossly indelicate in some instances that the witness 
would not repeat them here. And even the learned counsel for 
the Pastor, who affected to treat the subject very lightly, when re- 
ferring to them in his argument did not think it proper to use the 
offensive language, which was used by the Pastor on a certain 
occasion, referred to, but found it necessary to clothe it in a more 
decent dress to exhibit to you. 

Spurzheim and Combe, to whom the learned counsel has referred 
as examples of wisdom and propriety and whom he has so 
highly commended, were never guilty when lecturing on Phrenology 
to a mixed audience, of indelicacies like these. It is believed they 
studiously avoided on such occasions, as ought to be done, not only 
all indelicate topics, but all indelicate allusions. 

The ground on which we put this charge is not that which im- 
putes criminality — not exactly impurity in a criminal sense, 
but the want of a nice perception of what is proper and del- 
icate in language, and becoming the occasion and the sacred 
office of a Pastor. Call it what you please, a fault, a defect, or an 
error in taste, it shows a want of that just sense of propriety which 
is, so far, a disqualification for the pastoral office, and takes from 
the reverence and respect, which alone can sustain the usefulness 
of that sacred relation. From what they have said you will judge 
whether the witnesses have done more than mentioned in particular 
some only of the numerous occasions on which such language has 
been used. Have they undertaken to, could they mention and par- 
ticularize all ? But are these indelicacies then although so far as 
positive testimony goes to prove particular instances, few in number, 
to be regarded by this Council, as not affecting the character of a 



348 



clergyman ? If so, the reason for it should be better understood. 
For until then they will be so regarded by the community. Even if 
we could pass over the scene at Fanueil Hall, and the sermon on 
the Catholic Clergy, what excuse is there for the reference in the 
pulpit, in the audience of the families of his Parish, to the former 
vices of Corinth, and the extravagant prices there of a courtezan's 
favors ? If it were necessary to allude to the wickedness of that 
fallen city would it not have been sufficient to speak in general 
terms without relating particular or minute facts ? It is said he 
related it as an historical fact from Rosenmuller's Scholia. Be it so. 
Did the work from which it was taken change the character of the 
language used ? or render it more fit for the occasion ? And could 
he not with equal effect, and with incomparably better taste, have 
described the former magnificence and glory and the splendid vices 
of that once famous city, and contrasted it with her present dilapi- 
dated condition, and descanted upon the causes which led to it, in- 
stead of in the presence of wives and daughters, rudely lifting the 
veil under which her indecencies were concealed in a foreign 
language, in the Scholia of Rosenmuller. 

And so of his expressions and allusions in a lecture at Quincy, 
some of which on account of the indelicacy of them the witness 
refrained from stating, what are they, though difficult of apt descrip- 
tion here to convey the same impression as the original ; but proofs 
of a want of that nice sense of decency and propriety especially 
becoming and necessary to a christian teacher ? 

It is said that he lectured there afterwards, and this is urged as 
evidence that he did not use indelicate language in his former lec- 
ture. But the witness is not certain of the fact, and even if it were 
so you have no evidence at whose request he lectured, nor whether 
any of the same persons were present who attended on this occa- 
sion, nor whether they were pleased or displeased with these lec- 
tures or his manner of lecturing. 

But without further comments upon this charge, I will proceed 
in this connexion to consider the next charge affecting the character 
of the learned Pastor, which is, that he has been guilty of indeco- 
rum, levity, and want of reverence for the Holy Scriptures and his 
sacred calling. 

Abundant proof of this will be found in the learned Pastor's cor- 
respondence. You can scarcely turn to a page of it without finding 
something objectionable on this account. 

His letter to the public through the minority of the Proprietors, 
called a reply to the charges of the Committee, written as he has 
avowed for the express purpose of being printed and published, 
shows a want of becoming gravity — a want of decorum — a want 
of reverence for the scriptures — a want of respect for his own 
character and office, and a want of regard for the character and 
feelings of others, not only highly derogatory to him as a Minister 
of the Gospel, but wholly incompatible with the spirit of Christianity. 



349 



He alludes in offensive terms to several of his parishioners and 
even names two of them in connection with remarks and in a 
manner not becoming a person of his sacred calling. 

In particular, I beg you to notice his language in his bitter and 
sarcastic remarks respecting one of his Parish, Mr Windsor Fay, to 
whom he frequently alludes, as the " wealthy distiller," and 
whom he here names, and of whom he says, that 

" He was not present then a year ago last summer,when speaking of 
American influence upon Asia, where I had previously been, — influ- 
ence upon the condition and faith of Mahometan countries through 
the medium of our commerce and missions, 1 adverted to the fact that 
casks of Rum bearing the Boston brand might be seen lying on the 
wharves at Smyrna, and was led to inquire whether if one of our 
merchant vessels carries missionaries to Asia in the cabin and 
New England Rum in the hold, the influence of the New World 
is on the whole a blessing to the old if with our religion they take 
our rum, and when in order to lead my people to a just decision on 
this point, I proposed to them from the pulpit^ the question which 
through you gentlemen, I now seriously propose to my countrymen, 
from the press, whether is nearer the kingdom of God the sober 
believer of Mahomet or the drunken believer in Jesus ? No, 
gentlemen, the prime mover, as of record, in this year's action 
against me, was not present to hear this question. But by some 
one the question was reported, probably by one of those birds 
of the air which Solomon assures us shall carry the voice where 
one curses the King. Nevertheless, if we are to believe the 
4 protest' of the Proprietors, none of these sayings disquieted the 
wealthy distiller." 

" As he mused the fire burned. The rum distilled as the dew, 
and his meditation on the profits were sweet. He heeded not the 
hail from Hollis Street pulpit, that rattled upon the coppers of his 
still — his still " whose worm dieth not and whose Jire is not 
quenched" even on the christian Sabbath !" 

Now, Mr Moderator, I ask you if this and other parts of that 
correspondence which, since you have read it, I need not specify, 
show a just reverence for the Scriptures, and a due regard for the 
sacredness of the ministerial office. Is there not a levity, a want 
of decorum, that no minister of the gospel ought ever to exhibit to 
the world. Will you lower the standard of your own sacred pro- 
fession, by saying this is no cause for the severance of a people 
from their Pastor, if it become a serious ground of complaint. You 
cannot I think but have remarked that throughout his whole course, 
in this controversy, the Past, r has shown a levity, a want of regard 
for the feelings of others, and of respect for his own character, as 
a man and a minister that demonstrates him to be entirely unfit for 
the office he holds. No minister, who publicly indulges in such 
language, of indecorous and may I not say malignant sarcasam and 
vituperation, can hope to be, or ought to be respected in his office. 



350 



What reason could he possibly have to use such language ? Was 
it used for the mere personal gratification of indulging in witty sar- 
casam, pointing out indtviduals and holding them up to ridicule ? 
What other object could he expect to attain by it ? Would such 
conduct be justifiable or reputable in a Christian layman ? If not 
justifiable in a layman was it then under any circumstances excu- 
sable in a Christian Minister ? Was it decorous, was it becoming 
his sacred calling, publicly to single out and point to individuals, 
among his parishioners, by name or a description that could not be 
mistaken, if not for the sole purpose of wounding their feelings by 
holding them up to popular ridicule or disgrace, and thereby giving 
vent to a malignant and revengeful spirit, yet in a manner that 
could not but be, so far as they and the public are concerned equal- 
ly mischievous as if it were the express purpose ? Was it deco- 
rous in the Pastor of a parish, under any circumstances, to rail at 
and revile a large class of his Society, and to call in question their 
motives, without charity or even decency ? Or is it to be regarded 
as fit and proper and required by the freedom of the pulpit, for a 
Minister to point at not only classes but individuals, apparently for 
no reason but to gratify a sarcastic and revengeful spirit, and to 
treat with levity the sacred Scriptures merely to give point to a 
contemptible play upon words ? It is for you to determine, and I 
cannot doubt as to what ought to be or will be your descision. 

It has been asserted by the learned counsel for the Pastor that 
these and all other complaints affecting his moral character are 
founded on stale occurrences, and that the complainants have at- 
tended his ministration since these occurrences : and the learned 
counsel seems to suppose therefore that these things have been suf- 
ferred so long to rest by the Society, without open, general, and 
public complaint against, and abandonment of him, that there has 
been a sort of condonation of them ; and that they ought not 
now to be brought up against him. It is to be observed, however, 
that some of these transactions are of quite recent date ; that others 
of them have recently come to the knowledge of the Society, and 
that others of them have until lately been known only to a few. 
And, furthermore, it will be observed, that dissatisfaction and com- 
plaint began long ago and have been increasing and becoming 
more general as the true character of the Pastor has become more 
fully developed and better understood. And the acquiescence of 
individuals as far as there has been any, only shows their Christian 
temper, charity and disposition to view things in the most favorable 
light, and to construe and believe all things in his favor, until of- 
fence upon offence put the matter beyond doubt or endurance. 

I now leave the complaints directly affecting the moral charac- 
ter of the Pastor, and come to the consideration of another distinct 
ground of complaint, which is that the Pastor's attention has been 
diverted from his sacred office to secular pur suits and popular con- 
troversies. 



351 



It has been asked by the learned counsel on the other side, may 
not a clergyman write books, may he not attend to mechanical em- 
ployments, or the fine arts, in his leisure hours ? And it is grave- 
ly put as if such pursuits were charged by the Proprietors upon the 
Pastor, as improper or disreputable in themselves. 

Surely it is not so. We deny him no such privilege. We com- 
plain of no reasonable employment of the learned Pastor's leisure, 
in these pursuits, nor do we think it discreditable to a clergyman ; 
But it is the excess of which we complain. It is that he has taken 
up too much of his time for his private gain and profit, and too 
much in mere party matters, and devoted so much of it from time 
to time to partizan and secular concerns as to interfere most ma- 
terially with the proper discharge of his parochial duties. The 
Society think and with great reason that while they pay him liber- 
ally they have a right to his best services. They are willing he 
should have ample opportunities for recreation and amusement, and 
for every requisite attention to his own concerns — but when he be- 
comes absorbed in these pursuits, and renders his mind less fitted 
than it ought to be to the constant discharge of his parochial duties, 
— when his mind is occupied with the concerns of a party — or when 
he engages in secular matters so largely as to require to be relieved 
by his parish from pecuniary embarrassments, caused by unprof- 
itable speculations and inventions, in order to remove the burden 
which oppresses him, and prevents the full and free exercise of his 
faculties — then it is that he infringes upon his. contract with the So- 
ciety. For is it not the contract implied on the settlement of a 
Minister, for a fixed salary, that he will lay aside other matters and 
pursuits, that may, in any way, impair his usefulness, or interfere 
with his pastoral duties ? Do the Society agree to pay him a sal- 
ary to occupy his mind with selfish or temporal concerns or to lec- 
ture at large, and to devote his time to build up other sects and 
other causes than those connected with his parish and his profes- 
sion ? Do they pay him to enter into all the exciting topics of the 
day, and to put himself at the head of every new popular or unpop- 
ular movement, as a champion of every reform that may enlist the 
zeal of its supporters, until they absorb ever thing else in the strug- 
gle for their immediate object ? No. The very idea of a pay- 
ment of salary to a minister implies a faithful devotion of himself, his 
time and services to the Parish to which he is united. An itinerant 
preacher may go where he pleases; may, like the Apostles of old, 
preach or lecture where or whenever he thinks he can do the most 
good, But a settled minister in our times has not, nor is it necessary 
in the present state of Society, that he should have any such freedom, 
if this is what is meant by the freedom of the pulpit. He has parted 
with it, by his contract, and the Parish and not the community at 
large, is his field of labor, and if he strays from his immediate duties 
to become a reformer of the world at large, whatever may be his 
motive he is guilty of a breach of his contract made on his settle- 
ment and confirmed by the solemn ceremonies of his ordination. 



352 



Has not the learned Pastor done this? It cannot be denied, 
and indeed he admits, that much of his time has been occupied in 
secular affairs, and popular controversies. Is it possible that he 
could have devoted the time he has given to matters disconnected 
from his Parish, and not have neglected his duties there? It may 
be difficult to show this in detail, but it must be true in the aggre- 
gate. He has been engaged in lecturing on divers subjects, aad 
in projects of legislation, and has been called off and attracted 
by almost every novel or exciting topic that has come up. He 
has devoted much time to writing books, not connected with his 
pastoral office, and with the profits of one undertaking, relieved 
himself from embarrassments caused by another unsuccessful spec- 
ulation to the amount of six thousand dollars or more, in wood- 
en screws. It is proper to consider these things, not because 
mechanical employment is unbecoming a clergyman, but to show 
how in these worldly pursuits, his mind must have been diverted 
from the duties of his office, and his usefulness impaired. He 
not only became embarrassed by these pursuits, but he has been 
occupied with many other inventions, schemes and projects, and 
in consequence of this his mind has been distracted, — his paro- 
chial duties have been neglected, — he has allowed the secular 
business of the week to interfere with his preparations for the 
Sabbath — his sermons have not been so carefully considered, they 
have become less interesting, more philosophical, and not so 
evangelical or so replete with instructions in the genuine doc- 
trines of Christianity, as they should have been. 

This is the opinion of very many of the most candid among the 
old worshippers. And could it be otherwise? How was it possi- 
ble that while his mind has been thus occupied with secular busi- 
ness, with schemes and inventions, and employed in discussing 
and lecturing upon every novel or popular topic of the day and 
with all these engagements in extraneous matters pressing upon 
him, he could discharge his parochial duties in the satisfactory 
manner reasonably expected of him. This absorbing attention to 
secular matters has not been occasional merely, but has been al- 
lowed from year to year to engross a considerable portion of his 
time. He has been himself sensible of this, for when complaint 
was first made he admitted, in effect, that he had devoted too 
much of his time to these extraneous pursuits and objects, and 
promised a change. But his mind seems so constituted that a 
change is nearly or quite impracticable — the usual, quiet, rou- 
tine of parochial duties is too dull for him, and he has to go 
abroad for stimulus and excitement. Like the habitually intem- 
perate man, he constantly craves it, and cannot abstain though he 
has repeatedly seemed to promise to reform the habit. He is bet- 
ter calculated to take a lead of a sect or party, than to labor in 
the humble office of a minister of the gospel, and hence he is 
ever found rather at the head of a party struggling for the tri- 
umph of one portion of his Society over the other, than as the 



353 



teacher, and guide, and friend, of the whole. This propensity to 
stray from the beaten paths of duty has become habitual and un- 
conquerable, and, therefore, it justly forms a serious ground of 
complaint on the part of the Proprietors against their Pastor. 

1 here leave this, and will now proceed to another distinct 
ground of complaint, which is the unkind and excited manner in 
which he has preached on many Upics. 

Some of these are by no means the most appropriate for pul- 
pit discourses, especially, such as relate to matters of controversy 
in politics and legislation; but it is not the subjects that are com- 
plained of, so much as the manner in which they are introduced, 
and handled with reference to individuals and parties. 

It is asked by the learned counsel on the other side what stand 
and of preaching shall he conform to, that of Peter or John, Lu- 
ther or Melancthon? If, by this, it is meant to allude merely to 
zeal and earnestness of manner, or the want of it, we have no 
complaint to make on that score. He was at liberty to conform 
to any standard he might chose. As a matter of taste in elocu- 
tion we do not interfere with it in this inquiry. Neither do we 
object to his style of writing or elocution, nor to his manner, 
merely as manner; but to unkind and irritating and pointed man- 
ner. In mere matters of taste great liberality should be allowed 
to a clergyman, and in these, this Society have never been cap- 
tious or exacting. What they complain of is the unkind expres- 
sions he chooses to use and apply to members of his Society and 
their friends. 

It is said that if a minister would be eloquent he must be earn- 
est; but is it necessary to be personal and vindictive in order to 
be eloquent? I believe that no orator, in or out of the pulpit, 
in ancient or modern times, who has taken strong hold of the 
public mind, and been eminently successful in his ministrations 
ever succeeded by taking such a course. The orator succeeds 
by persuasion, and nut by menace, denunciation, and abuse. We 
know little or nothing, at this period of time of the manner of 
Luther, or Melancthon, or of Robins®n, of whom the learned 
counsel has spoken, but, I venture to say, from what ordinarily hap- 
pens in our day, that neither of the two first could have succeeded 
as reformers, or could have been eminently useful as preachers, 
if they had adopted the course pursued by the learned Pastor of 
Hollis-Street Church. As to Robinson who gathered the church 
at Ley den that came over to this country, as far as we can draw 
inferences respecting his manner from historical facts, it seems 
that it might have been fortunate for the learned Pastor, if he had 
taken him as a model, of a christian orator, worthy of imitation. 

History records the fact that for twelve years they did not have 
a single lawsuit in the Congregation to which he preached; from 
which I infer that he was a very different preacher from the 
learned Pastor of Hollis-Street Church; that he was a peace-ma- 
ker, and not an agitator, or caluminator, and that instead of in- 



354 



dulging in irritating personalities, or taking a prominent part in 
politiGal or secular controversies for the sake of agitation, he 
preached the doctrines of the gospel, that make for peace and 
not those secular doctrines that breed controversy, create divis- 
ions, and kindle and foment animosities in Society.* 

As to the topics a minister may introduce into the pulpit, it is 
gravely asked on the other side, as if the affirmation was implied 
in what we have advanced, is a minister to be interdicted from 
preaching against vice at home or abroad, where it may effect the 
feelings of any one present r and if he is cut off from touching 
upon foreign or domestic vices what is there left for him t© preach 
about ? 

Now the society advance no such doctrines — they require no 
such restriction. They object to no such preaching. They have 
employed and expect him to preach "righteousness, temperance, 
and judgment to come," and to select such topics proper for the 
pulpit for the themes of his discourses, as in his judgment shall 
be deemed most fit and best for the occasion. But they do also 
expect and require temperance, decency, propriety, discretion, 
christian kindness, and common prudence, in treating on such to- 
pics. 

Much has been said about the Freedom of the Pulpit, and it is 
said that the learned Pastor, if censured by you, is to be made a 
martyr to the freedom of the pulpit! The Proprietors have great 
reason to fear, that this idea may be pressed to the exclusion of the 
real merits of this controversy, and that the learned Pastor may 
cover many of his greatest errors, under the belief that the pulpit 
is to be in danger, if he shall be condemned. But how is the free- 
dom of the pulpit at all concerned here ? Have the Proprietors 
ever attempted to restrain the freedom of the pulpit; or must the 
pulpit be a nostrum or a stage, for the discussion of any and every 
thing, that the preacher chooses, under pretence of preserving its 
freedom? It is the friends of the Paster who have infringed the 
freedom of the pulpit by insisting on his introducing topics foreign 
to his sacred office, and urging them in a manner calculated, if 
followed by the rest of the Clergy, not only to put an end to the 
freedom of the pulpit, but to abolish all pulpits. For the people 
will never submit to that pretended freedom of the pulpit, which 
is all on one side, and allows the Pastor, as a partizan to do and 
say what he pleases, without any regard to the wishes or the wel- 
fare of the religious Society under his care. The freedom of the 



*Note. It is related by Hutchinson and others, of the Society Robinson 
gathered at Leyden, that upon their departure for America from Hol- 
land, where they had resided for twelve years, under their pious Pastor, the 
Magistrates of Leyden, in the public place of justice, made this memorable 
remark, concerning them — " These English have lived among us note these 
ticelve years, and yet we never had any suit or accusation come against any of 
them." 



365 



pulpit, which the learned Pastor and his friends contend for, is 
the right of a preacher of the gospel to be an agitator, even for 
the mere sake of agitation. You remember what the witness, 
Mr. Jackson said, on the score of agitation upon the abolition ques- 
tion, when he applied for the use of the house. He owned that 
he did not expect to succeed, he knew it would produce disquiet 
and dissension, but he thought a little stirring up would do them 
good. And in this sentiment we seem to trace the motive of the 
learned Pastor, in introducing secular and political controversies 
so often into his sermons, and in his constantly recurring, irrita- 
ting and offensive manner of preaching on these topics. It is ap- 
parent, therefore, that this freedom of the pulpit, as he and his 
friends define it, has nothing to do with the welfare or the wishes 
of the Society, but of a party or parties out of doors. Mr. Jack- 
son, in his agitation for the sake of agitation was looking, not to 
the welfare of the Church, and Society, but to his party, and to 
his course out of the Church, and Society, and unfortunately the 
learned Pastor has fallen in with this false view of the freedom of 
the pulpit. 

And what is this freedom of the pulpit, for which they profess 
to contend? Mr. Jackson has told you what he and his friends 
understood by it. It is the freedom of having things all in their 
own way. He and his friends would not be pleased with the 
learned Pastor, and would even abandon him at once if he should 
not continue to preach just as he has done. He must labor for their 
cause continually, espouse their opinions, adopt their mode of en- 
forcing them and promote the interests of their party rather than 
the welfare of the Society or they will discard him. When he is 
most bitter and offend others most, he pleases these, his friends 
the best! Mr. Jackson has told you that he would not sit under 
a preacher, who would not preach just as he thinks on abolition, 
temperance and the like topics. And another of their witnesses has 
said he should insist upon examining a preacher whomever he was 
contemplating to settle, as much on these topics, as on his reli- 
gious creed. This is their and their Pastor's Freedom of the Pul- 
pit — all ©n one side, and without any restraint whatever, and in 
fact, this lies at the bottom of all their movements. 

And now I ask you, does this talk, about the freedom of the 
pulpit, come with good grace from their lips? Or rather, does it 
not appear that under this pretext, of defending the freedom of 
the pulpit, they seek to cover over and conceal their real objects, 
which are to sacrifice the true freedom and dignity of the pulpit 
to the temporary objects and purposes of a party? Is it not plain 
that they seek to restrain the freedom of the pulpit, by compel- 
ling the Pastor, if he will not voluntarily do it, to introduce these 
foreign topics, and stir up partizan zeal and agitation? 

This they call giving freedom and independence to the pulpit. 
We call it improperly restraining the freedom of the pulpit, and 
desecrating it to party purposes. And you are to decide between 
us who is right. 



356 



The learned Pastor assumes and would have you believe that 
it is the topics on which he preaches which give umbrage. And 
that the Proprietors wish to restrain him, as to the subjects of his 
discourses. So far as these or any other topics are unfit for the 
sacred desk this may be true, but so far as any of these subjects 
are proper for religious discourses, they have not complained and 
do not wish to impose any restraint upon his freedom of choice. 
They never censured him for raising his voice against vice, in 
whatever shape it might appear. They never complained of him 
for condemning intemperance in eating, drinking or any other ex- 
cess, nor do they complain of his denonncing oppression of every 
kind. But they do complain, and think they have just cause for 
complaint, when he descends from the high moral ground, that 
a preacher should occupy, and selects and points out by name or 
description equally certatn, and denounces individuals, on ac- 
count of their opinions, views, or business, and holds them up to 
scorn and ridicule. 

Mr. Moderator, we all have our follies and failings, and who 
would endure being pointed at from the pulpit, and singled out 
and taunted for particular circumstances that should designate 
the individual, to gratify the bigotted spirit of one portion of the 
congregation, by a vindictive censuring and ridicule of another? 

Is that the independence of the pulpit which the Pastor seeks to 
maintain ? And is.it to be maintained by such a course of preach- 
ing ? If it be, he who endeavors to maintain it will find little sup- 
port in the Gospel he professes to preach. He will find that such 
independence will not be tolerated long in any civilized communi- 
ty ; and if it should be endured, what possible benefit could be 
derived from it ? Whatever may be the particular vices or faults 
of individuals, is it likely that reformation will be produced by point- 
ing them out and proclaiming them individually as transgressors ? 
Can any possible advantage arise to religion or morals, by distinct 
allusion to individual transgression from the pulpit ? Does it not, 
on the contrary, tend to mischievous consequences ? Does it not 
promote angry feelings ; exasperate, instead of convincing, and ut- 
terly destroy the usefulness of a preacher ? Does it not show a 
want of christian temper, wholly incompatible with the meek and 
persuasive spirit of christian teaching, and a mind not properly 
framed and disciplined to inculcate the doctrines of the Gospel ? 
Who can blame a Society for complaining of a pastor who habitu- 
ally denounces some of them or their friends from the pulpit ? And 
yet has not this been the habit and manner of the Pastor of Hollis 
Street Society for several years ? And this habit, so long indulged 
in, it seems has become so inveterate, that he can scarcely write 
or speak on any matter with earnestness, without using coarse ex- 
pressions and offensive personal allusions, insomuch that his hearers 
on such occasions are constantly expecting from him something of 
this kind ; and in the house of God, are often kept in trepidation 



357 



and anxiety, lest when heated, be should throw out something to 
excite, offend, or disgust — something coarse, severe, or inappropri- 
ate to the occasion. 

This is not all. The excitement he is addicted to, often (if we 
believe the witnesses) carries him beyond the bounds of truth as 
well as reason, and leads to the assertion of matters that are not 
well founded in fact. The sermon on imprisonment for debt, and 
his allusion to the creditor in such a way that all knew to whom he 
referred, is probably yoa conclude from the testimony only one 
among many instances ; and it is proved, if you credit the testimony, 
that what he then vouched for from the pulpit, in order to bring cen- 
sure and reproach upon one of his congregation, was not strictly true. 
He did injustice in his pulpit to the man he denounced. So in other 
instances. From the testimony you will judge if he is not often, in 
his pulpit excitements, led into extravagance of assertion as little 
conformable to truth as it is fit for the place in which it is uttered. 

It is this excited and censorious manner, and this severity with- 
out regard to fact, that have given rise to complaint. It is said that 
there are but few objectionable sermons pointed out, and that when 
examined they do not warrant the accusation. But it is not of 
whole sermons, but of constantly recurring allusions in sermons, of 
which the witnesses complain. Of entire sermons, but few it is 
true are named — the Alton sermon, the sermon on imprison- 
ment for debt, the anti-slavery sermon, on the occasion of the 
refusal by the Mayor and Aldermen, of the petition of Dr. Chan- 
ning and others, the sermon on the moral rule of political ac- 
tion, the phrenological sermon, and two or three others ; but 
you have it in evidence that though these, as a whole, excited 
more complaint than others, yet there were habitual irritating 
and offensive allusions in his sermons, too numerous to men- 
tion, in which persons and classes were singled out and spoken of 
in a manner to offend and inflict pain, and cause a serious and 
general ground of complaint. It was not a few sermons only, or 
occasional pointed remarks in various sermons, but a frequent habit, 
if you believe Messrs. Bass and Hay, and others, who have testi- 
fied before you. This, now, proceeds either from a settled habit, 
or arises, perhaps, in part from natural temperament ; but from 
whatever source it arises, it is inveterate, incurable, and renders 
him unfit to be a teacher of the Gospel. These sallies of apparent- 
ly vindictive feeling, and ebulitions of passion, he does not seem to 
restrain on the most solemn occasions, not even in performing the 
last offices to the dead. Whenever he is under excitement, he 
seems to lose all control over himself, and manifests a want of dis- 
cretion and judgment, and of common prudence, that renders him 
liable at all times to say things out of place or not becoming the 
occasion — to treat grave matters with too much levity and sacred 
things with irreverence, and to indulge in sarcasms and allusions 
that, are unbecoming, indelicate or severe, wholly regardless of the 



353 



consequences. Shall I refer to the sarcastic expressions of pity and 
contempt addressed from his pulpit to his assembled parishoners 
and their friends, who had flocked in crowds to the house of wor- 
ship to welcome him there on his return from Europe ? Shall I 
refer to his sermons and writings generally and the numerous occa- 
sions mentioned by the witnesses ? Or shall I call your attention 
to what has taken place before this Council and in your presence ? 
Shall I mention the unwarrantable attack upon, and abusive and 
insulting language towards an aged and respectable member of the 
committee of the proprietors, his acknowledged benefactor, in his 
address to you on the former hearing. Or shall I mention the still 
more recent but not less extraordinary language he used towards 
one of the witnesses (Mr Bradley) called here to give evidence 
against him ? That this habit continues inveterate with the Pastor, 
is shown by the recent occurrence at the funeral of the late Mrs 
Stewart. You heard from an intelligent witness, the expressions 
used on that occasion to censure and exasperate the living, and I 
ask you, if that fact stood alone, and nothing else was shown, it 
would not be sufficient to convince you that there was such want 
of decorum and discretion, and such a disregard of the solemnity 
of the occasion and the sacredness of the character he pretends to 
maintain, as shew him to be totally unfit to be a minister of the 
Gospel ? Can you say that a man with such faults or infirmities, 
call it which you please, is qualified for that sacred office ? 

What, Sir, must we have a clergyman fastened upon us as our 
pastor, whom even in case of the death of a relative or friend we 
cannot call upon to perform the solemnities of the funeral service, 
without constant apprehension that something may fall from his 
lips insulting to the feelings of the living or the memory of the 
dead ? Sir, it is intolerable ; and this transaction alone, in any 
light it can be viewed, and under any circumstances you can im- 
agine, shows a want of discretion, temper, decorum and proper 
christian feeling, wholly incompatible with a right discharge of the 
duties of a Pastor to his people. 

It was pretended by the learned counsel on the other side (Mr 
Washburn,) that this evidence was introduced unexpectedly, and 
that he had not opportunity to meet it by way of explanation. Not 
an opportunity to meet and explain it ! Pray, Sir, what explana- 
tion could be given ? I did not understand him as attempting to 
deny the truth of a single expression in that extraordinary prayer, 
to which the witness testified ; and from the knowledge all have of 
the accuracy and the habits of attention of that witness, you cannot 
have any doubt that the learned Pastor used the expressions as 
stated. I forbear to repeat them, and I ask if they are capable of 
any explanation under any circumstances, that could put the mat- 
ter in a more favorable light for the Pastor ? The counsel 
for the learned Pastor was well aware of this, and he attempted no 



359 



explanation, though there was ample time to produce it, could it 
have been found. The learned counsel made an allusion to the 
veil he would not remove from the domestic relations of the family ; 
as f behind this forbearance lay the Pastor's justification. Whether 
that was a suggestion which came from the learned Pastor himself, 
I know not ; but it seemed to partake of the same character as the 
allusion, perhaps almost threat, which the Pastor used to Mr Brad- 
ley while on the stand, as if to imply what did not exist, in order 
to deter the witness from, or embarrass him in, giving his testimo- 
ny. Sir, whatever may be the history of that family, thus ungene- 
rously alluded to it is most manifest that no facts that we could go 
into, would in the least degree justify the language used in that 
prayer or tend to shew that he who used it is still fit to be a min- 
ister of the Gospel. 

But I here leave that ground of complaint and proceed to an- 
other, that is, That he has not attempted conciliation or forbear- 
ance, but has conducted the controversy with his parish, in a 
harsh and unchristian manner. 

The answer he gives to this charge is that he did so by the advice 
of his friends, and that they approved his conduct. I apprehend 
there lies the difficulty. His friends are always pushing him to agita- 
tion for the sake of agitation. They have other causes in view 
than religion, and other interests to forward than those of the So- 
ciety, and everything must bend to their wishes. And hence the 
learned Pastor submits to them every thing which he sends to the 
Proprietors, in order to see if it comports with their views in these 
extr aneous objects, and to obtain their imprimatur. And it would 
seem as if the controversy on that side, and with the concurrence 
of the Pastor, had been conducted with reference to wresting this 
House from the proprietors, in order to desecrate the pulpit to these 
extraneous partizan causes, which engross their minds to the ex- 
clusion of religion. 

As to the charges of harshness, contempt, sarcasm and the vin- 
dictive and violent manner in which he has spoken and written 
to his Society, I may refer to his sermons and the whole corres- 
pondence. I think you will find that the strain of contempt, ridi- 
cule, insult and sarcasm, which run through the whole of these let- 
ters, bears ample testimony to the truth of this charge. No con- 
ciliatory disposition is manifest in any part of this correspondence. 

Had he taken a different course at first, such a course as his first 
letter gave just reason to expect, the breach might probably have been 
entirely healed. There was manifestly a disposition on the part of 
the Proprietors to reconcile and relieve all difficulties down to the 
period when he made known his determination to take a different 
course from that indicated in that letter and preached the political 
discourse on the Moral Rule of Political Action. It was his violation 
on this occasion of the promise which they understood him to hold 
out to them in his letter, and verbally, which satisfied the Society 



360 



that they could not safely place confidence in him. It was then he 
used the expressions that showed them to their satisfaction that he 
had no conciliating spirit and that he was resolved to persist in this 
course of insult and irritation. 

In his second letter his language is insulting not only to individ- 
uals but to the whole body of his dissatisfied parishioners. He 
charges them with improper and selfish views in all they had said 
or done, and tells them if they are not content they may seek relief 
by leaving the Society ; and in the next letter he taunts them with 
having taken the wrong course to get rid of him. In his letter 
addressed to the minority of the Committee, but written expressly 
for publication, he heaps abuse upon abuse, charges the dissatis- 
fied as a body, and individuals in particular, with having selfish 
and wicked motives, and seems to delight, not in conciliation, but 
in irritating and giving pain ? For what other reason did he refer 
to the " wealthy distiller," to " the committee of grocers," and to 
other individuals by name or an equivalent description ? Through- 
out his correspondence, he seems to have sought to gratify the bit- 
ter feelings of one portion of his congregation by abusing and ridi- 
culing the other. He even says in his published letter of Oct. 22, 
called his reply, he shall endeavor to make his remarks amusing 
to his readers. When speaking of the complaints of those who 
were dissatisfied with him, he treats them with contempt and scorn, 
charges them with malice, and tells them he pities their motives. 
" I contemn their charges," he says, " and pity the malice that 
when it could find no worse is so weak as to take up with them." 

Are these the expressions a clergyman should use to his people, 
and is this the course he should take where there is a grave differ- 
ence between him and the people of his charge, and the object is to 
remove the difficulty? I ask the Reverend Members of the Coun- 
cil, is this a proper spirit and temper for a Christian minister ? 
And if not can you say that a parish shall be compelled to hear 
such a minister, or be driven from their accustomed place of 
worship ? 

The learned Pastor seems avowedly to have taken real pleasure 
in indulging and giving vent to a rancorous spirit. Thus in his 
letter, called his reply, (page 32) he says " I learned soon after 
this declaration of my sentiments I had given offence. Very 
well! I thought it very likely, that I might give offence but if I 
gave offence to others feelings, / gave vent to my oion, by express- 
ing them plainly." 

Are these then really the feelings, and is this the temper and 
disposition of the learned pastor 1 We need not doubt after these 
expressions, that he has taken no pains to conciliate. On the con- 
trary, he has avowedly taken occasion to vent his own embittered 
feelings, reckless of whom it might offend or injure, or what mis- 
chief might ensue. His letter of 23d March, 1S40, (pages 2 and 3,) 
is full of taunting allusions and abusive language. He refers to 



361 



the improper influence of the wealth of the principal proprietors ; 
sneers at them for having taken a position they must retreat from, 
and says they want what they do not wish, and he shall endeavor 
to save them from the disgrace of obtaining what they want. He 
tells them that if they wanted to interdict his preaching what he 
chose to preach, they did not begin in season; talks of the power 
of the purse, and alluding to the dealers in spirituous liquors, he 
calls on them to desist from their business ; attributing their oppo- 
sition to his conduct, entirely to base and selfish motives. " De- 
sist," he says, " from the business that through the poverty of 
many has made you rich ; that has put you in your palaces by dri- 
ving them through hovels and prisons down to the gates of the 
grave." And in another letter he speaks contemptuously of them 
as a small stream of troubled waters. 

At pages 35 and 38, he charged them with attempting to conceal 
the real grounds of complaint and trying to cover them over by false 
pretences and with attempting improperly to overawe the pulpit — 
and Sir, not to weary the patience of the Council in selecting all 
the very objectionable passages which are to be found on every 
page, suffice it to say that a rancorous and bitter spirit, an unkind 
and unchristian temper and feeling, run through all his letters, 
which are wholly unbecoming a minister, and show that in this 
controversy he is the real source and cause of the difficulty. 

Instead of conciliating and proving a peace-maker, he has lent 
himself to a party in his Society to whom victory obtained by any 
means seems better than the advancement of religion without it, by 
the promotion of peace and purity in the congregation. And to this 
course of the Pastor in siding with a party against the Parish, we 
ascribe the main cause and spring of all the troubles which have 
disturbed the peace of this Society. 

The pastor and his friends ascribe the difficulty to opposition 
to Temperance and Abolition, but the Proprietors have deni- 
ed that this was the source of it, and have constantly af- 
firmed that they have no objection to his preaching on these topics 
in a proper manner and so far as morals are concerned ; and that 
it is the unkind manner and not the subject of which they complain. 
That this has been the case is shown by the fact that after there 
was complaint, and when the Pastor refrained for a time from this 
manner of preaching and gave promise that he would continue to 
refrain from it, there was, as we have seen, no further difficulty 
until he broke his promise, and preached the discourse on the moral 
rule of political action. 

The learned counsel for the Pastor has referred to dates as being 
important here, and perhaps it may not be unimportant to enquire 
when that sermon was preached? For it is conceded that then 
the discontent broke out again ? Now it appears that that sermon 
was preached in January, 1339, just when the question of the 
repeal of the License law was under discussion in the Legislature. 
46 



362 



Of all times, certainly that was the least proper for a clergyman to 
introduce such a subject then a matter of political and legislative 
controversy, into his pulpit. It was then strictly a political, party 
question, and one that had caused unusual party excitement 
throughout the State. It is true there was no election pending, 
but this very question of the repeal of the law was pending, and 
this sermon was seemingly designed expressly to operate upon the 
action of the Legislature on that question. The pulpit, therefore, 
was not the place to introduce such a discussion ; and the subject 
was one which he could not discuss without departing from the 
course which to satisfy the wishes of his parish he had given prom- 
ise that he would take. But though the Pastor did thus improperly 
introduce it, it was not the subject that was so much complained 
of and that was a cause of so much dissatisfaction, as the manner 
and the application, and the evidence it gave of his resolution not 
to regard the promise held forth to his people in his first letter. 

It has been said by the learned counsel that the printed sermon 
contains nothing very objectionable. That I cannot answer for I 
have not read it. But you have no evidence, excepting the testi- 
mony of the witnesses as to what that sermon was. The printed ser- 
mon itself establishes nothing. Whether the printed sermon con- 
formed to the manuscript, or embraced the extemporaneous matter 
or not, you know not, excepting so far as the witnesses have in- 
formed you. The sermon occupied the forenoon and the after- 
noon. As printed, it is said it can be read in fifteen or twenty 
minutes. It is certainly not unreasonable to suppose that the writ- 
ten part may have been printed and the matters of illustration and 
amplification, which were the most offensive, may have been omit- 
ted. And if the learned Pastor was as much excited, as it is said he 
was, you may easily infer from his want of discretion in other 
cases, the terms and language he might have used in these extem- 
poraneous remarks. Indeed, I think it clear from the evidence, 
that the printed sermon is not the sermon as delivered. 

You will recollect that Deacon Bass testified that the sermon 
$s delivered, contained much more than was printed, and that he 
recollected distinctly, one instance in particular, of things spoken in 
the pulpit by the Pastor which were omitted in the sermon when 
published. And if he has departed from his written or spoken 
discourse in one instance he may probably have done so and would 
be likely to do so in many others. This supposition is strength- 
ened by the fact that in his printed pamphlets touching this con- 
troversy, he has as I have, I think already shown, repeatedly 
stated things incorrectly if not wholly untrue ; and if he has not 
been scrupulously regardful even of fact and the truth in these 
publications, why may he not, with no more departure from recti- 
tude, have printed his sermons differently from the manuscript, and 
from that which was uttered, in order to keep out of view those 
things which he found had given offence and justify himself in the 



363 

eyes of the public* One thing is certain that in the sermon, as it 
was delivered, he did use expressions calculated to produce excite- 
ment and displeasure. It was not because he spoke of temperance. 
But the manner and expressions he used, and his want of kindness 
and conciliation and his departure from the line of duty he had prom- 
ised to follow, added to all that had gone before, which produced 
the difficulty, and rendered that discourse so exceptionable and 
together with other like offences led to the subsequent proceedings 
against the Pastor. After his promise in his first letter till this 
time as has been before remarked no dissatisfaction appears. 

The arguments of the learned counsel for the Pastor to show that 
his advocacy of the cause of temperance was the source of all the 
complaints, founded on the dates of the movements against him 
therefore falls at once to the ground. These movements had their 
origin as you have seen in other sources of complaint. And if 
the dealers in ardent spirits took part in these movements, they 
were not alone, nor was it until reasonable grounds of complaint 
existed. Until these gronnds of complaint existed they were ap- 
parently as contented and quiet as the rest of the society. 

It has been asserted that there was no one in the congregation 
in favor of temperance, who was not in favor of the learned Pastor; 
thus meaning to imply that all who were opposed to the Pastor, 
were opposed to temperance. The implication is as ungenerous 
as it is unfounded. I will on this subject refer to the views of 
Mr. Boyd one of the friends of the Pastor, who, with all his zeal in 
the temperance cause has not boldness enough to set the truth at 
defiance by such an assertion. Mr. Boyd says (pp. 41-42-43,) 
" I am not one who thinks he is immaculate. I do think and have 
said so repeatedly, that he has some errors. I think his opinions 
on some subjects, on some exciting topics if you please are er- 
roneous, and the practice which he pursued in years gone by to a 
considerable extent of devoting his time and talents to the out-door 
discussion of such topics was in my opinion an appropriation of 
his time and talents not the best within his reach ;" and he fur- 
ther says : " I know many of the gentlemen on the other side who 
are as zealously disposed in favor of rational temperance as any 
other men amongst us, gentlemen who can have no pecuniary 
interest whatever to be served or thwarted by the promotion or 
downfall of the sale of spirituous liquors — gentlemen who feel 
conscientiously that they have some other cause of complaint, 
and that with them this has nothing to do with it." That is 
the opinion of one of the Pastor's witnesses on the stand, one of 
the leaders of the party ; and in his opinion you see that the tem- 
perance cause has not been the only ground of complaint. And 
now since all the witnesses called by the proprietors and all the 
complainants who have been examined tell you that the com- 
plaints have always been of the unkind and improper manner 
and application, and not of the subject, — since ihey are thus 



364 



confirmed by one of the leading men among the friends of the 
Pastor — since the complainants have always denied that they 
have any objection to the promotion of the temperance cause-and 
since there is no reason to believe their professions are not sincere; 
is it just, is it reasonable to assume that the subject of temperance, 
as such, is the chief ground, or any ground of complaint. Will 
you not believe the witnesses when they tell you, under oath, that 
it is not so ? And can you doubt that it is the manner of the 
Pastor when you cannot but see from his manner before you, and 
and even toward this Council what it must in all probability have 
been toward those who differed from him in his Parish ? 

The learned counsel for the Pastor, finding the facts interfere 
with his arguments, in the last resort has assailed the witnesses. 
He has ealled upon you to reject the testimony of Mr. Bemis, and 
Mr. Fowle, because it depends so much upon their interests and 
feelings in the matter. Now let me ask how can they be sup- 
posed to have any interest or feeling in regard to this controversy? 
They are not proprietors. They are not willing witnesses, but 
come here by compulsion. Where there is necessarily so much 
of feeling on the part of most of the witnesses for the ' Pastor on 
account of their interest in this controversy,' it is not perceived 
that there can be any propriety in applying this caution to the tes- 
timony of those gentlemen I have just named. Why not, with 
much more reason, reject the testimony of Deacon May and Mr. 
Francis Jackson. 

It is said that Mr. Fowle is contradicted by Mr. Fairbanks 
and Mr. Williams. How is the fact. Mr. Fowle testifies to a 
pledge of the entire proceeds of the National Reader in 1829 or 
1830. Mr. Fairbanks to a pledge of one half of that and the 
First Class Book in 1833. What inconsistency is there here? As 
to Williams he testified to his impression that certain notes were 
on interest, and Mr. Fowle to his impression that he took them 
for a certain sum on which interest was not to be allowed. Is it 
inconsistent, or strange, that these witnesses should have different 
impressions ? Which showed the most candor and fairness in 
giving testimony I must leave you from their manner of testifying 
to judge. Williams certainly does not stand in the most favora- 
ble light, in this regard. 

The learned counsel has affected to regret that so much of the 
case depends on the testimony of Mr. Crane, the Chairman of the 
Committee who he says, has been first, middle and last among the 
witnesses for the proprietors. Why did he not regret that so 
much of the Pastor's defence depended on his friends Deacon 
May and Francis Jackson ? Certainly there is much more rea- 
son for him to regret it. Who among all the witnesses, in point of 
candor, fairness, consistency, integrity, and truth, on the stand or 
elsewhere, in or out of this house, has sustained, or does sustain a 
more unexceptionable or higher character than Mr. Crane ? Cer- 



365 



tainly none. But what shall we say of Deacon May and Mr. 
Jackson ? If we are to compare witnesses let us put them in contrast 
with Mr. Crane, or even any witness for the society. It is painful 
to allude to it. but Deacon May stands here directly contradicted 
on his oath, by three or four witnesses, so that you cannot, with 
the most charitable construction, doubt that what Deacon May 
has here asserted positively, under oath, was not true. 1 would 
not say that he meant to swear falsely, but I attribute his depar- 
ture from the truth to his excited feelings. He is so zealous to 
vindicate the Pastor and so eager to carry his points in this con- 
troversy, that he has really forgotten his own conversations and 
acts, and now affirms or denies as facts, what, when inquired into 
prove to be directly the reverse of his assertion. A contradiction, 
and on matters where the witness ought to have recollected what 
he had said, was never shown more palpably, than in the conver- 
sations of Deacon May with Messrs Crane, Smith, Weld and oth- 
ers, which he positively denied. And Mr. Francis Jackson seems 
to be found in a somewhat like predicament. 

If then the witnesses on either side are to be weighed together, 
as to credibility, put them in the scale and weigh them, and see 
which side will preponderate. 

But beside the particular grounds of complaint, which have 
been laid before you, there is a general view of this case which 
deserves your serious consideration. The course the learned Pas- 
tor has pursued, has in fact, increased the majority of original 
Propietors against him, since the first proceeding. I do not speak 
of the occasional worshippers, or of those who have been brought 
in temporarily to occupy the pews by driving out others. 1 take 
it that a Pastor is not to be upheld in driving off a portion of his 
Parish, by improper conduct and then bringing in his partizans, 
not members of the Society who may take their places, to show 
that the majority is on his side. I speak of the owners of pews, 
and members of the religious Society who are entitled to vote at 
their meetings. [Mr. Rand here referred to a change in the mode 
of voting in the Parish. Formerly each pew gave a vote. By 
the advice of counsel, (though the terms of the act of incorpora- 
tion might perhaps admit either mode) the Proprietors gave but 
one vote each, though holding more than one pew. This, by 
distributing the pews, more increased the number of persons, but did 
not change the number of votes on either side. The proceedings 
of the Society were right, perhaps in either way.] 

The result of this controversy thus far then, has been to in- 
crease the majority against the Pastor, and, in this state of the 
Society, what is to be done? The remedy which the Pastor and 
his friends propose, is that the majority should retire and leave the 
House to the minority. But why should the majority do so, 
rather than the minority 1 They have their attachments and 
associations to lead them to prefer this as their place of worship, — 



see 



in this place perhaps their ancestors and family were accustomed 
to worship — here they and their children may have heen baptiz- 
ed — here they and their friends may have been accustomed to join 
in their devotions — here they may for many years have met at 
the communion table, — or if no such associations have created an 
attachment to this place, it may be a more convenient place for 
them and their families to attend religious services on the Sabbath, — 
and why should they not with the legal right on their side, have 
at least as good right as the minority, to remain here and retain 
their pews ? It is asked why Deacon May, an ancient worship- 
per and his friends should be compelled to leave, as they will if 
the Pastor retires ? May I not with more reason ask why Deacon 
Bass, also an ancient worshipper, and his friends should be driven 
away by the minority? Would it be proper or right that the 
minority should drive the majority from the House and compel 
them to give up their pews and place of worship ? That would 
be strange justice, if it should be considered just; a strange rule 
if laid down as a rule of law, or equity or morality ; especially 
when it is apparent that the minority seek to secure the Meeting 
House in order to convert the pulpit from its legitimate end to 
their own particular worldly and party purposes. In such a case, 
it would be strange indeed if a minority should be allowed to 
prevail over the majority. 

It is said that the worshippers who attend here, (meaning of 
course to include such as are not members of the Society,) could 
build up a Society, after driving away those who are opposed to 
the pastor ; But if this were so, what ground could there be, in 
law, or justice or morals for sending away those who have a legal 
right here and would worship here, if they had a Pastor under 
whom they could sit, in the manner they were accustomed to, 
before this controversy arose, by retaining a Pastor for party ob- 
jects, to introduce and preach upon extraneous party matters and 
rail at his opponents from the pulpit. 

It maybe probable that if the majority should leave, a Society 
of some sort would be built up here. Doubtless in these days of 
excitement a society might be drummed up to support almost any 
kind of preaching. Even the preachers of Mormonism have their 
numerous followers. We have new and strange lights appearing 
not only in science and politics but in religion almost every day. 
If the learned Pastor should, instead of preaching from the bible 
take to a course of Lectures on masonry, mechanics, phrenology 
or animal magnetism, he might get many hearers, and perhaps 
establish a Society that would adhere to him, and fill the house 
for a time. But would that or any thing else but teaching and 
inculcating those doctrines and principles of religion which when 
he was ordained he professed to believe and promised to preach, 
be the legitimate purpose of the pulpit, or of his settlement here, as 
a minister of the Gospel? Because it is probable that he could 



S67 



gather a society by changing the purpose of the pulpit from reli- 
gion to lectures on temperance, abolition and other party objects, 
is that a reason for you to disregard the only legal party before 
you, the Proprietors, to lay their wishes and welfare and the 
cause of Christianity out of the case, and take into consideration 
only the objects of those who might combine for these other 
purposes, laudable perhaps in many instances in themselves, if 
promoted in the right way, but foreign to the designs of a settled 
clergy, and when allowed to interfere with the concerns of religion 
and the office and duties of its ministers subversive of a useful 
and well regulated pulpit? Surely not. 

It is therefore, immaterial whether, in the event of the majority 
withdrawing, such a Society could be built up or not ; the ques- 
tion is — regarding the welfare of this Society, this incorporated 
parish, the wishes and wants of the majority, the contract between 
them and the Pastor, the conduct he has pursued, and the rela- 
tions between them ; — whether, all these things being taken into 
view, it is right and proper on the whole that the connexion 
should longer exist, or now be dissolved. 

It would seem then, if I have taken a right view of the case, 
that so far as this Society is concerned, the usefulness of the 
Pastor has ceased, and this has been brought about by his course 
of conduct. And I think I may say that has been his own opin- 
ion, and that he was himself persuaded of it, as I have before 
remarked when he wrote his letter of resignation in 1839, and 
which he was prevented from sending in, only by the interference 
of those persons who professed to be his friends, but who really 
had other objects in view, than the interests of religion, or the 
welfare or harmony of the Society. Now when the majority of a 
Parish wish a Pastor to leave, and upon a calm, deliberate, unbias- 
sed consideration of the matter, he is himself convinced that his 
usefulness is at an end, and that he ought to resign, should the 
connexion be forced longer to subsist between them? What is the 
object of a ministerial contract? Is is not to promote the spirit- 
ual welfare of the parish? Surely it is not to authorise the min- 
ister to preach what he pleases, and to secure a salary for such 
preaching, regardless of his Society, however sincere he may be 
in enforcing his opinions. That was settled in Burr's case. 
The contract substantially is, that he shall devote himself to the 
duties of his office, that he may promote piety, and religion and 
virtue among his people, and when he ceases to be able to do so, 
he ceases to have an honest claim to his salary. No matter 
whether it arises from his misconduct or his folly. Improprieties, 
indiscretions, folly, indecorum, censoriousness, neglect of duty, all, 
or any of them, are sufficient to dissolve the relation of a pastor 
with his people. 

And who are his people 1 Who have a right to call him 
to account for his preaching 1 Who are to be regarded as affect- 



368 



ed by his preaching ? The Parish merely with whom he made 
the contract, and who are bound by it, and they only, and not the 
community at large — the legal Proprietors of pews — the incorpo- 
rated religious Society, — those who have a legal right to vote and 
act as members of the Society. They have contracted with him 
for his services, and have a right to them, and they alone are lia- 
ble to pay for them. And the moment you depart from this rule, 
and go beyond the majority of the legal Parish, to look to other 
parties, and other causes, and other interests, you disregard the 
main rule by which all corporate bodies are governed, destroy all 
religious societies, and introduce confusion and disorder. 

It is held forth on the other side among other things, as a sort 
of bugbear, that if the learned Pastor should leave, the Society 
would be broken up. But the evidence clearly shows on the 
contrary that it would flourish, that large numbers, and in fact 
nearly all who have left the house in consequence of this difficulty 
with the Pastor, would return, and new members be added. And 
besides, Mr. Hay and Deacon Bass think that if Mr. Pierpont 
should leave, not more than eight or ten at most would leave the 
Society, and those are the principal agitators in those other causes 
foreign to the welfare of this Society whose party operations lie 
at the bottom of these difficulties. 

Another pretext alleged for retaining the pastor is, that the Sun- 
day School would be broken up ; that the instructors and the chil- 
dren would leave if he should leave. Is this any sufficient reason 
for his retaining his office if he is unfit for it ? But it is apparent that 
the children of the Proprietors, the complainants, would fill the 
school, as well as the other side do now. It is in evidence too, 
notwithstanding the assertions of the learned counsel to the contra- 
ry, that one of the principal instructors very recently declared that 
he did not approve of Mr. Pierpont's preaching, and that he reluc- 
tantly became a teacher there at |he earnest solicitation of Mr. Pier- 
pont's son. So much for the welfare of the Sunday School. 

But it is said that the Church, too, would be dispersed, if the 
Pastor's connexion with the Parish should be severed. And this 
was held forth as a matter of great importance. But of whom 
does the Church consist ? Deacon May promised to furnish a list 
of the names of the members. He has furnished us with no 
names, but only with the numbers. At first he stated that there 
were seventy, then that there were sixty-four, carefully concealing 
the number of male members. On enquiry, it appears, that but 
sixteen are males and forty-eight are females, and a large propor- 
tion of these, we are informed, have joined since the difficulties 
began, who have come in from the operation of the extraneous cau- 
ses to which I have before alluded. It is, therefore, no test of the 
merits of the issue between the Pastor and the Parish. But there 
is really no danger that the Church will be scattered if the Pastor 
leave. More will be added by accession of his opponents than 



369 



will leave with him. If Deacon May, of whom the learned coun- 
sel has said so much, should leave, another head of the Church, 
quite as much interested in its welfare — equally ancient — equally 
respectable — and equally entitled to your consideration, Deacon 
Bass, will remain ; and so also, I trust, will all, but the friends of 
agitation. 

Again the learned counsel assumes, that a majority of the wor- 
shippers here are in favor of the pastor, and contends, that you 
ought to respect their opinion and wishes. We do not admit the 
fact assumed, nor the argument founded on it. Mr.Jackson thinks 
140 worshippers here are friendly to the Pastor. We have had 
no opportunity to examine the list he produced, and do not believe 
that much reliance can safely be placed upon signatures to a paper 
obtained in the manner which these have been. They certainly 
do not speak for themselves. The paper purports to have been 
got up merely to remonstrate against the ex parte council, and it 
does not appear that it was read to the signers, or that even the 
precise object of their signing was explained so as to be understood 
by them. It was obtained for avery different purpose from the pur- 
pose for which it is used here. Mr. Jackson undertakes to give 
his opinion as to two-thirds only of the signers, whose signatures 
were procured by him, and Mr. May as to the rest, whose signa- 
tures he procured. These opinions are founded chiefly on the fact 
of the signing. 

But we can place no confidence in these opinions. The list 
has been furnished at so late a period, that we could not bring 
the persons here before the closing of the testimony, of whom, 
we are credibly informed, there are many, whose names are borne 
on that list, who do not wish the Pastor longer to remain over this 
society. Messrs. Jackson and May went round and obtained these 
signatures for the purpose just alluded to ; but, considering how ea- 
sily signatures for such purposes may be obtained, the paper itself 
is no sufficient evidence that the signers even knew precisely the 
purport of it, or felt any interest in the object of it, and much less 
does it appear that the signers are now, if they ever have been, fa- 
vorable to the Pastor and wish him to remain as the minister of the 
Hollis-Street Society. The opinion of the witnesses on the stand 
is far safer to be relied on than any vague conjectures, founded 
upon the signers of a document like this. And Mr. Hay tells you, 
upon deliberate consideration of the matter, that a majority of the 
worshippers who are proprietors or members are opposed to the 
pastor. 

But suppose these one hundred and forty worshippers are in fa- 
vor of the Pastor. It is admitted they are not nearly all owners of 
pews. What number of the one hundred and forty are proprietors or 
members of the Society, and entitled to have a voice in its con- 
cerns ? And how many on that list are mere transient worship- 
pers, occupying by sufferance the seats from which the proprietors 
47 



370 



have been driven by the conduct of their pastor ? And how many 
are members of the same family and occupy the same pew ? 

These are questions which you must settle before you can deter- 
mine what influence the opinion of those persons ought to have. 
If they are not members of the Society — if they have no right to 
vote in parish matters — if they have no claim to be heard in the 
choice and settlement of the minister, their wishes cannot be enti- 
tled to afiy consideration on the question of his dismission. And 
one most important fact, which ought to be decisive of the question, 
cannot be denied ; and that is, that a considerable majority of the 
members of the Society are not only dissatisfied with him, but have 
lost all confidence in him and respect for him, and believe him to 
be unfit and unworthy to be their pastor— have passed the votes 
and brought forward these charges against him which have been 
submitted to you — and have called this Council of the churches to 
hear their complaints and consider the question of a dissolution of 
the pastoral connection. 

The learned counsel for the Pastor spoke of the consequences 
of a decision against his client as fatal to the freedom of your own 
pulpits, and as if religious liberty depended on it. If this was 
meant as an appeal to the reverend members of this Council to 
preserve their own pulpits, I am certain that they will disregard it. 
If it is meant to imply that religious liberty is to be endangered 
in any way by your decision, I ask how it will be done ? Surely 
not by a decision in favor of the proprietors. They have never 
contended for any improper restraints upon the clergy. They 
stand here not only to defend religious liberty and the purity of 
the pulpit, but to protect religion itself from party strife and fanat- 
icism. If the pulpit is to be made a rostrum for preaching on all 
the exciting controversial topics of the day, as the learned pastor 
and his zealous partisans contend that it ought to be, then not only 
will there be just cause to fear for religious liberty, but religion it- 
self will stand but little chance to hold possession of the pulpit, in 
a conflict like this, to change the purposes of public worship to 
party ends. And therefore, Mr. Moderator, if your decision must 
proceed at all on the ground of protecting the pulpit for such pur- 
poses, against the wishes of the majority of the society, may it not 
be well to consider how far this independence of a minister over 
his people can be carried, and the present religious establishments 
be long continued. The cause of Christianity, sir, in our day, can 
only be promoted by general reasoning and persuasion, and not by 
the violence, intrigue, stratagem, or denunciation of a partisan 
spirit. 

The people are willing to receive the doctrines of the gospel 
from the lips of their religious teacher ; but in this enlightened 
age they will not endure dictation from him in regard to their sec- 
ular concerns, nor submit to have the pulpit, at his instance, turn- 
ed into a hustings for party electioneering, or a place to drum up 



sn 



partisans for a cause. No true christian can desire it, and the ocm* 
munity will not endure it. When this shall be attempted, and the 
attempt shall be aided by the countenance of our ecclesiastical 
councils, we shall indeed have great cause to fear, not only for re- 
ligious liberty and the freedom and independence of the pulpit, but 
for Christianity itself. 

Again it is said on the other side, that the cause of temperance 
will go on, and it is vain to oppose it. This is also thrown out to 
connect the cause of the learned Pastor with extraneous matters 
that do not belong to it. It is meant to imply, and most untruly 
and unjustly, that the Pastor and his friends are the martyrs of 
the temperance cause, and we its opponents. Nothing can be more 
unjust. Who denies that the cause of temperance will go on, and 
ought to go on ? Who opposes it ? Not the Proprietors of Hollis 
Street meeting-house. They bid it God speed, as a moral cause, 
but not as the cause of a party. They think it needs not that kind 
of support which the learned pastor and his friends would officious- 
ly attempt to give, and cannot be advanced by the means that 
these busy, meddlesome partisans are seeking to employ. They 
would save it from becoming narrowed down to the bigoted views 
of a few who take no pleasure in the success of a moral cause, as 
such, nor unless they can raise up a party with it, to ride over 
others, and deal out anathemas to all who will not conform to their 
newly invented and prescribed mode of effecting moral reform. It 
is from such mistaken friends as these that the cause of temper- 
ance, and abolition of slavery, and every other good cause has 
most to fear. I would entreat these zealous advocates of reforma- 
tion, for the sake of religion and morality, and the welfare of the 
country, to take heed to the course they pursueand the means they 
employ. And I most earnestly press upon the attention of the 
learned counsel for the Pastor who has made this appeal in behalf 
of temperance and abolition of slavery, the importance of this view 
of the case, and beseech him to join in imploring that all-protect- 
ing Power, to which he alluded as having twice saved this house 
of worship from destruction, to protect not only this society, but 
the friends of religion and reform, from the fatal consequences of 
such blind, overheated zeal, recklessness, and indiscretion. 

It now only remains for me to say a word, in the close of my 
remarks, as to your powers as an Ecclesiastical Council. It is said 
that if you put the question of dissolution on the general grounds 
of expediency, other parties than the Pastor and the Parish, have 
a right to be heard. But it is not so. Whether it is regarded as 
a question of expediency, or as a question of fact, upon the truth 
of the charges, or in whatever light you put it, it is simply a ques- 
tion between the Pastor and the Parish, as a legal corporation or 
society incorporated for religious purposes. I refer to the case of 
Burr and Sandwich, as settling this point beyond all controversy. 
There the grounds of expediency alone were the grounds of dis- 



372 



missal of the pastor. The Council found no immorality or neglect 
of duty, no folly, imprudence, or indiscretion. He had merely 
changed his religious sentiments, from his own honest convictions 
of duty. The Council reported that he had honestly changed his 
mind, and they put the dissolution of the connexion solely on the 
ground of expediency, considering that his usefulness was at an 
end. In his settlement over that Parish, the Rev. Mr. Burr did 
not contract that he would not change his sentiments, but the im- 
plication was that he should teach what he believed, and he did 
teach, according to his own conviction ; but, though he was not in 
fault in this matter, yet, inasmuch as his congregation could not 
profit by his teaching doctrines different from what the majority de- 
sired, and notwithstanding all the Church were in his favor, the 
Council, in that case, decided that he could not be a useful minister 
to that Parish, and they therefore said, that on the general grounds 
of expediency, the connexion ought to be dissolved. In that case 
none were heard or regarded but the Pastor and the legal Parish, 
and that decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court, and is now 
the standing law of the Commonwealth. 

There is, consequently, nothing to restrain the action of this 
Council between these parties, without any reference to others, on 
the general question of expediency either upon the grounds of 
complaint, if made out to your satisfaction, or upon the grave sus- 
picions which the evidence may justify and which are good and 
sufficient reasons for dissolving the connexion, or upon the general 
ground that, under the circumstances, he can no longer be useful 
as a minister over this Society. And it is for you to say wheth- 
er on either of these grounds the welfare of the Parish does not 
require it. 

These are the grounds upon which the -Proprietors contend that 
they are released from their contract with their Pastor, and have 
asked the interference of this Council to settle the difficulties that 
have divided the Society. No relief which could be had in the 
civil Courts would be likely to produce so speedy and happy a re- 
sult as may be expected from the intervention of your tribunal. 
And the subject is most certainly peculiarly proper for your cogni- 
zance. The parties have therefore agreed to submit it to you, so 
far as your powers extend, as an Ecclesiastical Council founded in 
the practice of our forefathers, and necessary to the preservation 
of order, discipline, and peace in the churches and religious socie- 
ties in our Commonwealth. The welfare of these churches and 
societies depends very much upon the discreet exercise of this ju- 
risdiction. And, in this case, the welfare of this religious society 
much depends upon the independence, candor, impartiality, and 
rigid respect to right and duty, regardless of the interests of any 
cause, or sect, or party, other than the cause of Christianity and the 
interests of those parties by whom you have been convened, 
with which you shall come to a decision. The Christian commu- 



373 



nity look to you for this, and the Proprietors leave their cause in 
your hands, in the strong hope that your result will put an end to 
heir difficulties. 

[Mr. Rand having closed, Mr. Lothrop wished to know if both 
parties were satisfied with the hearing they had had before the 
Council. 

The Moderator inquired of the Proprietors' counsel and of the 
Pastor's, if they were willing to rest the case there. 

Messrs. Pierpont and Rand both expressed themselves satisfied, 
and had nothing further to offer. 

Mr. Lothrop wished to know how the letter of Mr. Pierpont to 
the Proprietors, concerning a Mutual Council, and the votes offer- 
ed by Mr. Boyd, came before the Meeting of the Proprietors, 
whether together or separate. 

^ From the answers of Mr. Dexter and Mr. Pierpont, it appeared, 
that the letter was sent by the Clerk of the Parish, and the votes, 
privately, given by Mr. Pierpont to Mr. Boyd, who copied and 
presented them as his own. 

Mr .Gannett wished to know, whether, in the matter of the au- 
thorship of the prologue^ when Mr. Washburn supposed there was 
a third person the author, who had intrusted the Pastor with the 
secret in confidence, he made that suggestion from the Pastor, or 
of his own conjecture. 

Mr. Rand. The learned Pastor can answer. 

Mr. Pierpont. I suppose Mr. Washburn was using an argu- 
ment. I acknowledge nothing — it must be proved. 

On motion of Mr. Elliot, the Council adjourned till the next 
morning for private deliberation.] 



JOURNAL 

OF THE 

CLOSING PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL. 



Saturday, July 24th. 
The Council assembled this morning at 9 o'clock, for private de- 
liberation. Prayer was offered by the Moderator. After the read- 
ing of the Journal, the Council entered upon the discussion of the 
Grounds of Complaint and the testimony in relation to them. After 



374 



some discussion, in which every member had an opportunity to 
express his opinion, the Council at 2 o'clock adjourned, to meet at 
9 o'clock on Monday morning. 

Monday, July 26th. 
The Council assembled this morning at 9 o'clock. Prayer was 
offered by Rev. Dr. Frothingham. After the Journal was read, the 
following resolution was presented — 

Resolved, That although on such of the charges, preferred against 
the Rev. John Pierpont, as most directly affect his moral character, 
the proof which has been presented has been altogether insufficient; 
yet, on the charges, an amount of proof has been brought forward, 
as requires this Council to express their disapprobation of Mr. Pier- 
pont's conduct on some occasions, and in some respects, but not suffi- 
cient, in their opinion, to furnish ground for advising a dissolution of 
the connexion between him and his parish. 

After a full discussion, this resolution was adopted. The follow- 
ing resolution was then passed. 

Resolved, That a Committee of five be appointed t» draw up a 
" Result of Council," to be submitted to this body for their consider- 
ation at a future meeting. 

The following gentlemen were then appointed on this Committee. 
Rev. S. K. LOTHROP, 

" SAMUEL BARRETT, 
Hon. RICHARD SULLIVAN, 
Rev. E. S. GANNETT, 
SAMUEL DORR. 
The Rev. Moderator was subsequently added to this Committee. 
The Council then adjourned, to meet on Monday, the 9th of Aug* 
at the study of the Rev. Dr. Frothingham, at 4 o'clock, P. M. 

Monday, August 9. 

The Council assembled at Dr. Frothingham's study, this day, at 4 
o'clock, P. M. Prayer was offered by the Rev. Moderator. 

Rev. S. K. Lothrop, from the Committee appointed for the pur- 
pose, reported a Result of Council, which was read, as follows: 



RESULT IN COUNCIL, 

N THE CASE BETWEEN THE REV. JOHN PIERPONT AND THE PROPRIETORS 
OF HOLLIS STREET MEETING HOUSE. 

The " Grounds of Complaint" preferred on the 27th of July, 1340 ; 
by the Committee of the Proprietors of Hollis Street Meeting House 
against their Pastor, the Rev. John Pierpont, to be submitted to a 
mutual Ecclesiastical Council, as " reasons" for dissolving the Pas- 
toral connexion subsisting between them, embrace three descriptions 
of charges. 

First, Charges affecting the moral character of the Pastor, and 
impeaching his purity, his integrity, and his regard for truth ; Sec- 
ondly, Charges affecting the ministerial character of the Pastor, 
impeaching his fidelity in his office, and condemning the manner in 
which he has discharged its duties; and Thirdly, Charges growing 
out of the difficulties that have arisen between him and his parish, 
and impeaching the christian temper and spirit of the pastor in respect 



375 



to the manner in which he has, in his letters, public communication 
and speeches, conducted the controversy. 

These " Grounds of Complaint," therefore, present very grave 
and serious charges, affecting the character and reputation of a min^- 
ister of the gospel, and through him the interests of religion itself, 
der these " grounds of complaint" the parties have had a full and 
patient hearing; the Council have diligently considered all that has 
been presented to them in the testimony and arguments, and feel it 
to be due, as well to themselves as to the parties and the interests of 
religion, to present a full view of their opinions upon the various 
points involved in the case. 

1. And first, they are of opinion that the charges affecting the 
moral character of the Pastor are not sustained. They believe that 
a calm review and a charitable construction of what was presented 
under these charges, will not only support this opinion, but must lead 
to this result. 

The charge impeaching the Pastor's purity of mind sets forth 
" that Rev. John Pierpont has, in the pulpit, and elsewhere in pub- 
lic, unnecessarily made indelicate statements and allusions, by which 
his audiences, and more especially the female portion thereof, have 
been mortified and disgusted, and the confidence of a large portion 
of his parish and the public, in the purity of his mind and motives, 
been impaired." The Council consider the evidence adduced as al- 
together insufficient to sustain so grave and serious a charge as this. 
But three instances of statements or allusions of the kind referred 
to were presented in the testimony, and these three, even if admitted 
to have been unnecessary, were such as only to call in question the 
good taste of the Pastor, and not his purity, and no proof was exhibi- 
ted that confidence in the purity of his mind and motives had to any 
extent impaired. 

The charge impeaching the Pastor's integrity sets forth " that the 
Rev. John Pierpont has, in his secular dealings, been wanting in that 
scrupulous integrity which is necessary to the respectability and use- 
fulness of a christian minister." Under this charge three specifica- 
tions of a violation of integrity are adduced. First, that the Pastor 
" pledged to another the copyright of a book, which he had engag- 
ed with Mr. William B. Fowle not to dispose of, without first offer- 
ing it to him. not having offered the same to said Fowle." It ap- 
peared in evidence that the Pastor did not pledge the copyright of 
the book, but merely his share of the proceeds, which, under a copy- 
right contract, were from time to time to fall due to him from the 
sale of the book. It appeared that these proceeds were received by 
himself, in money or notes, and by him paid over to the person to 
whom they were pledged, till the debt for which they were pledged 
was liquidated. The Council are of opinion, therefore, that this 
specification, as set forth in the "grounds of complaint," is not sus- 
tained. Under this specification, a large mass of testimony was pre- 
sented to the Council, touching all the secular transactions between 
the Pastor and Mr. Wm. B. Fowle, and their contracts in relation to 
the copyrights, and the sale of the copyrights of certain books 
held as joint property by them. Although some members of the 
Council are not prepared entirely to approve the Pastor's conduct in 
all these transactions, yet, inasmuch as that conduct does not bear 
upon the specification set forth in the "grounds of complaint," and 
inasmuch, also, as it involves a question of legal right, to be deter- 



376 



mined by a higher and more competent tribunal, the Council do not 
feel calle dupon to express an opinion in the case. 

The second specification against the Pastor's integrity recites that 
he " wholly neglected and omitted, without any justifiable excuse, to 
furnish Mr. William W. Clapp, one of his parishioners, with letters 
from him while in Europe, for publication in the Evening Gazette, 
he having entered into a written agreement so to do, and having re- 
ceived from said Clapp and negotiated his acceptance for two hun- 
dred and fifty dollars, as the consideration for writing said letters." 

It appeared in evidence that the Pastor did send Mr. Clapp one let- 
ter from Europe, dated about three months after he sailed from this 
country, a large portion of which was subsequently published in the 
Evening Gazette, and that in this letter he refunded the money, and 
informed Mr. Clapp that the stay he made in any one place was so 
short, that it would be imposible for him, in his state of health, to meet 
his engagements to furnish him letters for publication. It appeared 
in evidence, that the Pastor was suffering from ill health at the time 
this letter was written, and that he was considered by those who then 
saw him, unequal to the task of writing much or regularly. 

The Council cannot but consider this as a justifiable excuse for the 
Pastor's failure to furnish the letters, and they regard the facts, there- 
fore, as presented under this specification, as insufficient to sustain 
the charge. 

The third specification against the Pastor's integrity, charges him 
with " communicating and suffering to be made public, and to be 
publicly sold, a newly invented Steel Hone, which Dr. Bemis, the 
inventor, had entrusted to him for his private use, upon his under- 
taking that he would not communicate or make known the same." — 
And also with " claiming as his own, or wilfully permitting the in- 
vention of said hone to be publicly attributed to him, without contra- 
diction, he well knowing the said hone was not invented by himself, but 
by said Bemis." It appeared in evidence, that many years since the 
Pastor did receive from Dr. Bemis, under an injunction of secresy, 
and with the understanding that Dr. Bemis intended to obtain a pa- 
tent for it, a steel hone or tablet, for the purpose of sharpening ra- 
zors, to be used with or withont paste, and nothing wa« shown to the 
contrary. It appeared in evidence, that some eight or ten years af- 
terwards a steel hone or tablet was put into the hands of a mechanic 
at Taunton, for him to make one like it, by a gentleman who said he 
obtained it from the Pastor ; that this mechanic, not being cautioned 
to any secresy, made several of these hones or tablets for different 
persons; that receiving about a year afterwards an improved kind of 
paste from the Pastor, he manufactured these hones for sale, and 
they were publicly sold with this mechanic's name upon them as the 
maker. It did not appear in evidence that these hones were publicly 
known and advertised as the invention of the Pastor. It did not ap- 
pear that the Pastor claimed the invention as his, or refused to 
acknowledge that his original Tablet or Hone came from Dr. Bemis. 
It did not appear that the Pastor claimed or received any pecuniary 
profit or advantage from the manufacture and sale of the article. 
Now, as Dr. Bemis felt aggrieved under these circumstances, and 
the Pastor was so informed, the Council consider it matter of regret, 
that he did not call upon him and offer some explanation of his con- 
duct; but in consideration of the many years that elapsed after the 
Hone came into the possession of the Pastor, before it was made 



377 



public, and that no satisfactory account was given by Dr. Bemis of 
fajs delay during all thi-s time to procure a patent, a circumstance 
which might naturally lead the Pastor to conclude that he no longer 
considered the matter as of any importance, and inasmuch, also, as 
improvements in the application of steel for the purpose of sharpening 
had meanwhile been made and publicly announced, and inasmuch, 
furthermore, as it did not appear in evidence in what precise way 
the hone came into "the possession of the gentleman who brought it 
to the mechanic at Taunton, nor for what purpose it was entrusted 
to him by the Pastor, the Council are of opinion that the facts con- 
nected with this specification do not require a construction adverse 
to the Pastor's integrity. 

The remaining charge affecting the Pastor's moral character sets 
forth, "that the Rev. John Pierpont has been wanting in that scru- 
pulous regard for truth, which should distinguish a christian minis- 
ter," and the specification recites, " that evidence will be offered of 
his having denied expressions and remarks made by him in his ser- 
mons and upon other occasions, and of his having denied the writing- 
of a certain theatrical prologue, or other composition, written by 
him." 

But little evidence was presented to the Council touching the first 
clause in the specification. Differences of recollection existed among 
the witnesses as to the precise words or expressions sometimes used 
by the Pastor, but the Council are of opinion that nothing was shown 
under this clause impeaching his regard for truth. In regard to the 
second specification, it appeared in evidence, that several years since, 
when a prize was offered for the best theatrical prologue, a poem, 
believed, on recollection by one of the Committee, to have been in 
the Pastor's hand-writing, was sent to the Prize-Committee; that at 
the same time a gentleman, who had previously been asked by the 
Pastor if he might be relied upon as a confidential friend, in case a 
poem should be offered, but was not informed directly as to the au- 
thorship of the poem, received a letter, also believed to be in the 
Pastor's hand-writing, dated Hartford, and signed J. Jameison, in- 
forming him that a poem with this signature had been sent to the 
Committee, and requesting him, should the poem be successful, to 
receive the prize-money, and pay it to whom he supposed it to be- 
long, and that this gentleman subsequently received the prize-money 
and paid it to the Pastor. It appeared that afterward, when some 
excitement arose in respect to the authorship of the poem, and the 
Committee to relieve themselves from attacks and imputations cast 
upon them through the press, were anxious to discover and declare 
the author's name, the Pastor replied to an inquiry put to him for this 
purpose by one of the Committee, " that he had not written two lines 
of heroic verse for two years," and it appeared that the poem in 
question was written in heroic verse, and nothing contrary to all this 
was shown. The Council are of opinion, that these facts do not ex- 
hibit such evidence that the Pastor wrote the poem in question as to 
authorise them, sitting in judgment on his character, to pronounce 
his reply to a member of the Prize-Committee, to have been a denial 
of the authorship, or an evasion of the question. To authorize 
them to do this, they consider that it ought to be shown, not simply 
that the Pastor may have written the poem in question, but that he 
actually wrote it, and wrote it within two years, or that he must 
have written it, and written it within two years, as no one else could 
48 



378 



have written it, which is not shown. While the Pastor's position, 
therefore, in relation to the prologue, may be deemed unfortunate, if 
cannot be considered such as to authorize the Council to pronounce 
him wanting in tha! regard for truth, which, as a man and a clergy- 
man, he should possess. 

In addition to the specifications set forth in the " grounds of com- 
plaint," certain passages in the printed correspondence of the Pas- 
tor, and in his remonstrance to the ex-parte action of the Council, 
were also adduced as evidence of a want oti his part of a scrupulous 
regard to truth. The Council are of opinion, that in the exact sig- 
nification of words, and the ordinary acceptation of language, some 
of the passage referred to, would convey to readers generally a 
meaning different from that which the Pastor puts upon them, and an 
apprehension of facts from those which actually occurr< d, and 
they consider it matter of regret, that in documents of such impor- 
tance there should not. have been a clearness and explicitness in the 
language used, that would have precluded all misapprehension of 
meaning and all appearance of mis-statement. If, for example, in 
his letter of Sept. 20th, 1838, the Pastor did not mean to admit that 
he had devoted too much time to topics somewhat foreign to the 
appropriate duties of his office and profession, it is to be regretted 
that he did not say so explicitly, rather than have used a form of ex- 
pression, which, to some readers, has conveyed the idea that he did 
mean to admit it. 

The passages which may be thought to afford most support to the 
charge under consideration, are that in his letter of Oct. 22, 1839, in 
which he speaks of the Resolutions offered by Mr. James Boyd, as 
"appended" to his letter of Oct. 7th, and that in his Remonstrance, 
in which he says, that on the 7th of Oct. 1839, he " tendered to the 
Proprietors a mutual Council, to decide whether for reasons of any 
thing that he had done, or left undone, in relation to the temperance 
cause, or for any cause whatever, the connexion between the Society 
and himself ought to be dissolved." Now as the Resolutions offered 
by Mr. Boyd, were not, strictly speaking, appended to his letter, as 
they were not written upon the same paper, nor upon a paper attach- 
ed to his letter, as they were not conveyed to the meeting of the 
Proprietors under the same envelope with it, nor by the same means, 
nor through the same person, it must be admitted that to speak of 
them as " appended" to that letter is a singular use of the word; and 
as the offer spoken of in the Remonstrance was not made in his let- 
ter to the Parish of the 7th of Oct. wherein a Council upon a narrow 
and single issue only is proposed, but was made in the Resolutions, 
whirh, though written by the Pastor, were offered by Mr. Boyd in 
his own ii:ime, without any intimation that he acted under the Pas- 
tor's authority, and were so constructed as to be, in fact, an offer or 
invitation from the Parish to the Pastor, it must be admitted that the 
declaration does not correspond to the facts as they would be receiv- 
ed by most persons. Still, inasmuch as the Pastor has insisted upon 
the correctness of his interpretation of the word " appended," and 
inasmuch as his apprehension of the facts may, under the circum- 
stances, have been honestly entertained, the Council do not think 
themselves justified in imputing to him a disregard of truth. 

The tc grounds of complaint," affecting the moral character of the 
Pastor, have thus been reviewed at some length, because, in the 
judgment of all, and especially in his own estimation, this must be 



379 



Considered the most important point involved. Whether he be con- 
tinued the Pastor of Hollis Street Society is of small moment in com- 
parison with the question whether or not he shall stand before the 
world, pronounced by the solemn judgment of his peers, as unwor- 
thy of confidence, because wanting in purity, integrity, and a regard 
for truth. The Council are of opinion that he cannot be so regard- 
ed, and ought not to be so pronounced. 

The second description of charges affects the Pastor's ministerial 
character, impeaches his fidelity in his office, and condemns the man- 
ner in which he has discharged its duties. 

It will not be necessary to recite these charges or the evidence in 
relation to them so specifically as the former. It is complained gen- 
erally, " that the Pastor's time and attention have been too much 
withdrawn from the duties of his office to secular pursuits and pop- 
ular controversies; that he has preached in an unkind and excited 
manner upon these controverted subjects; that his general demeanor 
has not been such as to promote and secure peace and harmony in 
his parish, but the contrary; that he has been wanting in that deco- 
rum, gravity, gentleness, and discretion, both in matter and manner, 
which are essential to the usefulness and respectability of a christian 
minister, and that these things have so alienated the affections and 
destroyed the confidence of a large portion of his parish, that the 
connexion ought to be dissolved." Upon these complaints two ques- 
tions present themselves to the consideration of the Council; first, 
the justness of the complaints; and secondly, the effect it is contend- 
ed they have produced, and the issue, in which it is contended they 
ought to end. Upon the first question, the Council are of opinion 
that most of the complaints are sustained in part; i. e. that there ex- 
isted reasonable ground for raising the complaint. It appeared from 
the circumstances developed in the investigation before the Council, 
and will be acknowledged probably by the Pastor himself, that he 
has been interested and active as a man and a citizen, in enterprises 
and pursuits not coming strictly within, and more or less widely apart 
from, his appropriate sphere of duty and effort as a clergyman. — ■ 
The Council recognise, and the community will recognise his rinht 
to do so, provided this do not cause, and be not attended with the 
neglect of duties that especially devolve upon him as a minister of 
the gospel. Such neglect the Council are decidedly of opinion was 
not shown. On the contrary they think that few clergymen could 
have a ministry of more than twenty years so 'horoughly scanned 
and investigated, and not have more instances of neglect, and evi- 
dence of inattention brought forward against him. Upon this point 
the Council cannot but consider the investigation had before them as 
honorable to the Pastor. 

If, therefore, no neglect of appropriate duty can be proved against 
him, the mere fact that he has been interested and active in other 
objects and pursuits cannot be made matter of just complaint against 
him. Such interest and activity may be the means of making him 
more useful as a minister, and whether so or not the office of clergy- 
man does not divest him of the rights of a man and a citizen; and 
like all other persons he has a claim to the enjoyment, and is to be 
upheld in a wise, prudent and discreet use of the e rijhts. The 
question then arises, whether the Pastor has been wise, prudent, and 
discreet, both in the use of these rights, that is, in the manner in 
which his interest and activity in relation to objects somewhat apart 



380 



from his professional duties have been manifested, and in the manner 
in which he has conducted and discharged his duties as a christian 
minister. The Council are not prepared to say unqualifiedly that he 
has. On the contrary, they think that the Pastor may be justly cen- 
sured as having sometimes failed in these qualities. They think that 
on some occasions and in relation to some objects, he might, with- 
out the slightest infringement of his personal independence, or of 
the independence of the pulpit, and both in and out of the pulpit, 
have pursued a different course, manifested more of calmness and 
moderation, and through these have been more useful. They con- 
sider that the circumstances of his parish, and the condition of things 
in that quarter of the city where his ministry was chiefly exercised 
audits influence exerted, were peculiar, and such as called for a 
large measure and a constant exhibition of that wisdom which is 
from above, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be 
entreated, full of mercy, without partiality as well as without hypo- 
crisy, whose fruit is sown in peace to them th.it make peace; and in 
this wisdom the Council consider that the Pastor has somewhat beers 
deficient. 

But in the ministry, as in every other office and relation of life y 
allowance is to be made for individual temperament; and it is to be 
considered probable, also, that if there was sometimes a want of pru- 
dence, gentleness, and discretion in the Pastor, there may have been, 
on the part of some of his hearers, unconsciously a susceptibility to 
offence, which led them to attach a stronger meaning and to make a 
more pointed application of his sermons, and portions of his sermons ? 
than was intended by him, or they could justly be made to have or to 
to convey, and thus the difficulties have arisen from faults and fail- 
ings in both parties. 

While the Council consider, therefore, that there were not unrea- 
sonable grounds of complaint, as respects the manner in which the 
Pastor's interest and activity in relation to objects somewhat apart 
from his office, were manifested, and as respects the manner also in 
which he has discharged some portions of his duty as a Christian 
minister, and while they think that he has exposed himself to reproof 
and caution thereupon, they are of opinion that there is not made 
out against him such habitual indiscretion, such a series of impru- 
dences, such a continuation of conduct improper and unbecoming a 
Christian minister, as to authorize them to advise and say that he is 
no longer worthy to stand in the pulpit, which for more than twenty 
years has witnessed his ministration. 

The third description of charges in the cc Grounds of Complaint,'-" 
impeaches the Christian temper and spirit of the Pastor, in respect 
to the manner in which he has conducted the controversy, which has 
now for some years existed between himself and a portion of his 
parish. These charges recite M that after a difference had arisen 
between the Rev. John Pierpont and many of his parishioners, upon 
some of the subjects above mentioned, he has not pursued a kind or 
conciliatory course, but on the contrary, has continued and con- 
ducted the controversy with his parishioners in a harsh, contemptu- 
ous, vindictive, and unchristian spirit, by which the minds and afTec? 
tions of a large portion of his parish are justly alienated fro in their 
minister," and also, " that the Rev. John Pierpont h is in his pub- 
lished letters to committees, or individuals in his parish, respecting 
the said controversy, been guilty of great levity, indecorum, and 



381 



Want of reverence for the Holy Scriptures, and his own sacred call- 
ing, by which he has justly lost the respect and confidence of a great 
portion of his parish and of the public, and brought a scandal upon 
his office as a Christian minister," 

After carefully considering all the letters and documents put into 
the case, by the complainants, the Council do not perceive that any 
portion of the correspondence can properly be styled " vindictive,' 5 
nor do they perceive any instances of intentional irreverence for the 
Holy Scriptures, although the Pastor has allowed himself in a use of 
Scriptural language painful to the feelings of this Council. With 
these exceptions, the Council are of opinion that these charges are 
in a measure sustained. Subsequently to his letter of the 30th of Sep- 
tember, 1833, they think that there is little of a Christian temper or 
spirit manifested in the Pastor's communications to the parish — that 
in some portions of them, there is a degree of harshness, levity, per- 
sonality, ridicule and sarcasm, at variance with Christian meekness, 
forbearance and charity, unbecoming a Christian minister, and cal- 
culated to bring reproach upon his office and order. Whatever may 
have been the provocation, they think that a Christian minister should 
have exhibited a different spirit. VVhatvever may have been the mo- 
tives which the Pastor supposed to influence his opponents, what- 
ever may have been the subject, which he thought was the chief 
cause of their opposition, however trivial he felt justified in regard- 
ing some of the matters brought up against him, the object to which 
all related was the dissolution of the pastoral connexion; and that is 
a grave, serious, not to say solemn matter, at all times and in every 
point of view; and in viewing it, both parties, and most certainly 
the Pastor, should bring into exercise calm and Christian thoughts, 
the best principles and the best affections of our nature, and they 
think there is evidence in the correspondence, that this has not 
always been done by him. They feel constrained to say that, in 
their judgment, the Pastor's communications subsequent to 1838, are 
not conciliatory or dignified, and that on sotne occasions, by commu- 
nications of a different temper and spirit, if he could not have healed 
dissensions, he might have placed his own cause and character in a 
more favorable light before the community* 

The Council have thus reviewed all the charges in the cc Grounds 
of Complaint." They do not perceive that under these " Grounds 
of Complaint," it has been shown that the Pastor has done such 
wrong, or been guilty of such imprudence, indiscretion or impropri- 
ety, as to make it just and requisite that he should be displaced from 
his pulpit. But do not these "Grounds of Complaint" present 
" reasons " for dissolving the connexion? To this question, the 
Council are not prepared to give an affirmative answer. They can- 
not entertain the idea that any great principle of vital importance to 
our religious institutions are involved in this, more essential than in 
many other cases of dissension between a Pastor and a parish. They 
do not consider that the freedom of the pulpit is at stake in the con- 
troversy, nor do they perceive that it is necessary for them to stand 
between this Pastor and his opponents, to pr««;erv'e the freedom of 
the pulpit. In an intelligent community, that can never be seriously 
in danger, nor essentially infringed. Neither do the Council per- 
ceive that the position of the Clergy would be injured, or their just 
rights jeoparded by a decision of the case before them, adverse to 
the Pastor, on the general grounds under consideration. But they 



585 

do not perceive that such a decision is required or would be benefn 
cial. It is uot required, because it appeared in evidence that a ma- 
jority of the worshippers in HolJis street Meeting-house, a majority 
of proprietors now worshipping rhere, and nearly all the members of 
the Church, are satisfied with the Pastor. It would not, in the opin- 
ion of the Council 3 be beneficial, because they do not perceive that 
any foreign interference, the action of any power from without, can 
bring back peace, or be the means of bringing back peace to 
this divided parish. This can only be done by the voluntary action 
of the parties themselves, and to such action the Council would ear- 
nestly urge and exhort them. 

But the Pastor and the parish are not the only parties interested. 
Thus far, the controversy, which has been the occasion of the assem- 
bling of this Council, has been viewed solely in its relation to the 
parties immediately concerned — -the complainants on the one side, 
and the Pastor on the other. There is another view which ought 
not to be overlooked, and on which the Council feel constrained to 
make a few remarks. The parties immediately concerned, are not 
alone affected by the spectacle of such a controversy, maintained 
with unusual vigor for nearly three years. The community, in the 
midst of which this spectacle has been presented, have not been, and 
could not be insensible to its character, or indifferent to its progress. 
The Christian church, far and wide, must feel an interest in the con- 
duct of its members, and the reputation of one of its ministers. The 
cause of religion must suffer from what has been called, in one of 
the documents belonging to the present controversy, "a scandal," 
an offence against the peace and spiritual well-being which should 
distinguish the Christian body. It has been impossible to follow the 
history of this case, as it has been unfolded in the papers laid before 
the Council, and by the witnesses examined in their presence, and 
not observe the temper which to a sad extent has prevailed, and 
which such a struggle is sure to inflame, if not beget. It has been 
too plainly a struggle, in which each party has endeavored, by ingen- 
ious argument, direct assault, and unpleasant, and sometimes bitter 
insinuations, to gain or secure an advantage. Undeniably, the spirit 
of meekness, gentleness, candor, and that righteousnes, which, 
according to the ideas of the Gospel, is but another name for the 
charity which never faileth, has been disregarded, and injury ac- 
crued at which the friends of reli-iion must grieve, while others may 
find occasion for reproach and derision, and which years may not 
repair. 

While the Council mean not to deny that both a minister and a 
people, have their rights, which they ought to value, and in a proper 
spirit, and in a proper manner to maintain, they cannot but notice how 
pregnant, an example has been brought before them, of the evils of 
dissension between parties united by such close and sacred ties as 
those which bind minister and people in a common use of privileges 
and a common hope of salvation. And they do earnestly and affec- 
tionately exhort those who, in the present instance, have been led 
into a most unhappy and hurtful controversy, to compose their divis- 
ions, to bury the past in forgetfulness, and while they accept as defi- 
nitive, the decision o which this Council has arrived, in the exercise 
of their honest judgment upon all the facts brought under their no- 
tice, to "follow after the things that make for peace, and wherewith 
one may edify another." They do not conceive that they are ex- 



S83 



ceeding the bounds within which their result should be confined, 
when they surest to the Pastor the propriety of his endeavoring to 
bring his efforts, in behalf of the various objects not immediately 
connected with his ministry, into nearer correspondence with the 
wishes of his parish; and upon the complainants, they must nlso 
press the duty of according to their Pastor a large exercise of his 
own judgment, in the selection of subjects to which he shall devote 
such portions of his titne as the duties of his ministry may leave at 
his own disposal. If both the parties will adopt the course of for- 
bearance here indicated, by which neither will sacrifice any rights, 
or in any degree, compromise conscience, their future connexion 
may be marked by mutual satisfaction and common improvement, 
the discordant elements of this parish may yet be united in harmony, 
and the interests of religion flourish again within the sanctuary where 
they should be fostered by the blended influence of truth and love. 
Wide as the schism has become between the two portions of the par- 
ish, as well as between the complainants and the respondent, in the 
case committed to the Council, the breach may be healed by the cul- 
ture of those feelings, which, on the one side and the other, ought to 
be cherished, to the exclusion of harshness, jealousy, and whatever 
ha bit of recrimination has tended to produce the present state of 
alienation. In the culture of such feelings, and the exercise of can- 
dor, humility and brotherly love, the Council would urge the Pastor, 
tho proprietors, and the worshippers in this church, by every consid- 
eration that can be drawn from a sense of their duty to themselves, 
to their brethren in the faith and hope of the Gospel, to the interests 
of Society, and to the cause of religion. Then may it be seen, that 
as in the continual providence of God, so here, evil is made produc- 
tive of good, as the experience of the evils and mischiefs of division 
shall turn the thoughts of all upon a more diligent pursuit of the 
Christian temper and life. 

Having thus reviewed the case before them, and presented the 
grounds of their decision, with the advice they deem it proper to 
offer, the Council have only to add, in a concise form, the unanim- 
ous expression of thei»* opinion, which is as follows: 

Resolved, That although on such of the charges, preferred against 
the Rev. John Pierpont, as most directly affaet his moral character, 
the proof which has been presented has been altogether insufficient, 
yet on other charges such an amount of proof has been brought for- 
ward as requires this Council to express thfir disapprobation of Mr. 
Pierpont's conduct on some occasions, and in some respects, but not 
sufficient, in their opinion, to furnish ground for advising a dissolu- 
tion of the connection between him and his parish. 

FRANCIS PARKMAN, Moderator. 

A true copy from the Records: 

S. K. Lothrop, Scribe. 

August 9, 1841. 



After some remarks by several gentlemen, the question being 
taken by yeas and nays, on the adoption of the Report, as the Result 



384 



of Council, it was unanimously accepted. The vote on the accept- 
ance of the Report, was taken by yeas, as follows: 

N. L. FROTHTNGHAM, 
S. H. BABCOCK, 
CHANDLhlR ROBBINS, 

D. H. BARNES, 
S. K. LOTH R OP, 
RICHARD SULLIVAN, 

francis park man, 
j. b. hammatt, 
alp:xander young, 
samuel dorr, 
e. s. gannett, 
r. d. chapman, 

T. W. P. GREENWOOD, 
S. A. ELIOT, 
F. T. GRAY, 

E. B. CL\RK, 
S. BARRETT, 
L. G. PRAY, 
JOSEPH H. DORR, 
R. C. WATERSTON 
J. T. SARGENT, 
MARTIN LINCOLN, 

It was then Voted, That a copy, signed by the Moderator and 
Scribe, be sent to the parties. 

It was then Voted that the Scribe be authorized to have the "Re- 
sult" published, and to make such use of the Official Journal, as he 
may see fit, in preparing for publication, an account of the proceed- 
ings of the Council. 

f It was then Voted, that the thanks of this body be returned to the 
Moderator, for the ability, and courtesy, and impartiality, with which 
he has presided over its deliberations, and to the Scribe for the inde- 
fatigable fidelity, with which he had discharged the arduous duties of 
his office. 

After a few words was said in reply by these gentlemen, the Coun- 
cil united in prayer, which was offered by the Rev. Mr. Gannett, 
and then dissolved, it being five months and twenty-five days, since 
they first assembled. 

S. K. LOTHROP, Scribe. 



Yea. 

(C 

it 
(t 

(C 

it 

(C 

ts 

(absent.) 

(C 

Yea. 

(C 

(absent.) 
Yea. 

(C 

ti 
tt 
is 
a 
cs 
tt 



ERRATA. 

The hasty manner in which much of the manuscript copy was prepared for press, 
and the proofs not passing sinder the revision of the writers has made a labia of er- 
rata necessary after the forms were struck off. 
On page 60, line 15, for no, read more. 

" 71, " 12, for theirs, read thus. 

" 73, " 27, for from, read for. 

" 74, " 10, for could be, read could not be, 

" 74, " 16, for same, read law. 

" 75, " 32, for expected, read rejected. 

" 85, " 9, for parties refused, read Pastor's refusal. 

4i 85, " 23, for law, read sense. 

41 91, " 11, for given this, read given by this. 

18 102, " 25, for will, read sense. 

" 102. " 38, for them our, read their own. 

" 103, " 38, for calling the motives, read calling in question the motives. 

" 107, " 9, for was fixed at the Hollis Street Meeting House, read was 
fixed. 

" 107, " 29, for Hollis Street Meeting House, read Law Library. 

" 111, " 18, for or, read on. 

" 1 12, u 26, for probably, read properly. 

" 117, " 17, for charges, read charge. 

" 118, " 48, for 12, 67, read 12 to 7 . 

" 123, !t 3, for impudent, read imprudent. 

" 126, " 30, for action, read auetion, 

" 127, " 15, for advanced, read understood. 

" 139, u 16, for certify, read testify. 

" 153, " 11, for mere, read new. 

" 153, " 13, for mere, read new. 

" 155, " 6, for National, read Tremont. 

" 154, " 31, for I read, and. 

" 155, " 43, for he, read I. 

" 182, " 39, leave out eve. 

" 1S2, " 54, for Rosemer, read Roaemnuller. 

u 186, 11 43, for John B., read John D. 

H 189, " 8, for or, read of. 

a 189, " 18, for above, read alone. 

u 1S9, " 25, for cherished, read estranged. 

" 196, " 47, for though, read that. 

se 198, " 18, for recorded, read recovered. 

" 198, " 20, for 140 men, read 140 now. 

,! 199, " 11, for had, read read. 

" 200, " 15, for at the, read by . 

" 200, " 15, for of the other side, read to the counsel of the other side, 

" 202, " 38, for on, read or. 

" 206, " 43, for 1840, read 140. 

,f 210, <( 10, leave out with. 

" 220, t: 53, for willing, read unwilling. 

" 287, " 3, for editions, read additions. 



REPORT. 



The Committee of the Proprietors of the Meeting House in 
Hollis Street, who were instructed to consider what order the 
Society shall take upon the Result of the late Mutual Ecclesi- 
astical Council, have considered the subject, and submit the 
following — 

REPORT. 

The Committee are aware that after a mutual submission of 
the matters in controversy between the Society and their Pastor, 
to a tribunal so highly respectable as the late Mutual Council, 
decorum requires from both parties a measure of acquiescence in 
the result, as to the facts submitted ; but neither custom nor pro* 
priety makes it necessary for either party to adopt the advice of 
the Council, without a careful examination of its grounds. If 
the advice is unfavorable to the Pastor, it is admitted that he has 
a right of appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court for a revision of 
it: and if it be unfavorable to the Society, they have a right of 
appeal to another Court. 

The Committee, therefore, while they shall endeavor to avoid 
disputing the judgment of the Council, upon a mere question 
of fact, upon which their decision is clear and unequivocal ; must 
still think it due from the Committee to the Society, and from 
the Society to the Christian public, to examine with perfect free- 
dom, and to adopt or reject, according to their own views of their 
propriety, all the results deduced by the Council from their own 
finding of the facts. Before beginning, however, such an exam- 
ination, your Committee would, in the name of the Society, 
express their strong sense of obligation and gratitude to the 
several members of the Council, for thekindness which prompted 
them to undertake, and the patience which enabled them to com- 
plete an investigation so laborious and so painful — and to dis- 
claim most sedulously any disrespectful intention, if they should 
feel compelled to differ from the Council, as to the expediency of 



2 



advice, offered, as they are convinced, in the spirit of Christian 
charity, and with a conscientious regard to the cause of religious 
liberty and order. 

Before proceeding to examine the Result, with reference to the 
several charges submitted to the Council, the Committee must 
congratulate the Society upon the decided negative thus publicly 
and conclusively put upon the most prominent pretensions of 
the Pastor. 

The first of these is, that his exertions in the cause of temper- 
ance have been, as he has phrased it, " the head and front of his 
offending." He has deemed this question so important, as to 
have proposed to the Society a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, to 
determine it. He has throughout, in his various published let- 
ters, and in the argument of his counsel, earnestly sought to try 
his cause against the Proprietors upon this false "issue." But 
the Council find no such thing. They select no one particular 
cause of difference, but pronounce the Pastor to have been in fault, 
" on some occasions, and in relation to some subjects," and that 
" on the other hand, the Society may have been too susceptible 
to offence." It has always been admitted by the Society, that 
Mr. Pierpont's course in relation to the sale of ardent spirits, was 
one of several causes of their dissatisfaction, but he has seen fit 
to declare it the foundation of the whole. This specious appeal 
tothe sympathy of a large and enthusiastic party, can no longer 
avail the Pastor, or do injustice to the Society. The "issue," 
has been tried, and found against him. 

Again, while the Pastor was thus seeking the sympathy of the 
Temperance party abroad, his appeal to the personal interests of 
the Council within, were not less loud or specious. To an Eccle- 
siastical Council it was proclaimed in pamphlets and speeches, 
by himself and his counsel, that, in his person, the freedom of the 
pulpit was assailed, and that with him it must stand or fall. 

To this the Council calmly answer, that they see no such gen- 
eral interest at stake in this controversy, and no such connection 
between his condition and their own. 

To these two pretensions, therefore, of the Pastor which have 
principally operated to secure to him a portion of public sympa- 
thy in this controversjr, the Result of the Council returns a deci- 
ded negative. Mr. Pierpont is no longer the martry of the 
Temperance cause, nor the champion of the freedom of the pul- 
pit, but a clergyman who, according to this Result, had first 
given his Parish "not unreasonable grounds of complaint," and 
has since carried on a controversy with them in published 
pamphlets, in which the Council find there is " little of a Chris- 
tian temper or spirit," and " a degree of harshness, levity, per- 
sonality, ridicule and sarcasm, at variance with Christian meek- 
ness, forbearance and charity, unbecoming a christian minister, 
and calculated to bring reproach upon his office and order." 
The Committee will now proceed to consider whether the 



3 



Result of the Council shows just ground for the advice with which 
it terminates, or whether advice of dissolution would not have 
- been its more appropriate conclusion. 

The Council begin their Result by dividing the charges against 
Mr. Pierpont, into three classes — those affecting his moral char- 
acter — those affecting his ministerial conduct — and those 
growing out of his manner of conducting the controversy between 
himself and the Society. 

Of the first, the Council have in general terms, acquitted the 
Pastor, and had they stopped with that general decision, the Com- 
mittee would have felt bound to acquiesce, without a word of 
remark. A party once simply acquitted of a moral charge, cer- 
tainly ought not to be again impeached, upon the same evidence. 
But, unfortunately, the Council have not stopped there; they 
have gone on to express their opinions upon the several specifi- 
cations separately, in such a manner, as it appears to the Com- 
mittee, as greatly detracts from the value of the general conclu- 
sion drawn from them in favor of the Pastor. 

That portion of the Result, relating to the moral charges, must 
be taken altogether, before the opinion really formed upon them 
by the Council, can be ascertained. If the general sentence of 
acquittal, with which it begins, is not sustained by the judgment 
passed upen the individual specifications, such an acquittal can 
neither be very satisfactory to the party accused, nor very 
strictly binding upon the party aggrieved. One thing, however, 
your Committee, being composed of the same individuals who 
were the Committee for preferring and prosecuting the charges, 
feel bound to state, as they can with perfect truth, that if the only 
object of the Society, in this proceeding — the dissolution of their 
connection with the Pastor — could be otherwise accomplished, 
they should much regret any result unfavorable to the character 
or interest of Mr. Pierpont. When he is no longer their min- 
ister, they can sincerely wish him both individual prosperity, and 
success in the career of a public reformer, which he seems so 
much to prefer to the more humble path of a Christian Pastor. 
In this particular, both he and his friends mistake much, when 
they attribute the proceedings of the Society to any personal hos- 
tility to him as a man. They have resulted from a deep and well- 
considered disapprobation of his course, as their religious teacher 
and spiritual guide ; and, although they will feel it to be their 
duty to take every proper measure to remove him from that 
position, it would give them entire satisfaction to see him trans- 
ferred from a Society, which his perversity has divided and almost 
destroyed, to any other station in which his undisputed abilities 
could be useful to himself and to the community. 

The Committee, then, feel bound to inquire whether the whole 
of the Result which relates to the moral charges, amounts, when 
taken together, to such an acquittal as ought to be satisfactory to 
the Society, or whether the charitable feelings of the Council 



4 



have not led them to pronounce a judgment upon these charges, 
atvariance with what may he called their own verdict in the 
finding of the facts. 

The offence first charged, is impurity of speech ; not imputed 
as habitual, but in two certain specified instances, and as having 
had the effect of impairing confidence in the " purity of his mind 
and motives." Under this charge, two cases only were stated, 
and they were proved precisely as laid, and at least one more of 
a similar kind. 

The Result, then, when it says, " but three instances of state- 
ments or allusions of the kind referred to, were presented in the 
testimony," admits, at least, the whole charge, as matter of fact. 
The Committee charged two, and proved three instances of 
" indelicate statements or allusions, unnecessarily made." 

The Council, not denying their indelicacy, consider these 
instances as impeaching only the " good taste " of the Pastor. 
To this opinion of the Council, the Society is bound to submit, 
and the case stands thus : That the Pastor has, in three instances, 
(two in the pulpit and one at the Lyceum lecture, in the presence 
of males and females,) exhibited a " taste " for indelicate state- 
ments and allusions ; but " they were not such as to call in ques- 
tion his purity" — that is, the purity of his " motives ;" for it is 
difficult to understand how a " taste " for indelicate statements 
and allusions, is consistent with purity of " mind." The Council 
further find, that there was no proof of confidence in the purity 
of his mind and motives being impaired. In this particular, and 
in this only, did the evidence fall anything short of the charge the 
Council finds. 

The Council find the instances proved, but not the effect upon 
others. 

The C©mmittee cannot but think it singular that the Couucil 
should pronounce the evidence to be " altogether insufficient to 
maintain so grave and serious a charge as this," when it is after- 
wards admitted that the whole of the charge which was personal 
to Mr. Pierpont, was proved. We repeat that there was no 
charge of habitual or general impurity, even of taste nor any 
charge of actual impurity of mind or motives. Any such accu- 
sation was carefully avoided, until it should be made proper by 
further evidence than the Committee had in their possession. 
As to the effect produced on the audiences, and especially on the 
female part of them, by such statements as were proved to have 
been made, viz : — the particular price paid in ancient Corinth, 
for the embraces of a prostitute, — the improbability that the 
unmarried Catholic clergy led a life of chastity, being " the best 
fed and best clothed, and having passions like other men," — and 
allusions too coarse for the witness to repeat, to phrenological 
organs, of which the lay professors of the art, have always 
avoided speaking before females — the Committee admit that it 
was not, because they thought it needed not to be, proved. 



5 



The next charge relates to the Pastor's integrity in his secular 
dealings. And here it must be observed with what qualification 
this charge is preferred : it is " that he has been wanting in that 
scrupulous integrity, which is necessary to the respectability and 
usefulness of a christian minister." This charge, the Council 
s,ay, is not sustained by the evidence; that is, that a christian 
miuister may do in this particular, as they find that Mr. Pierpont 
has done, without the loss of his respectability and usefulness. 
That is a point upon which the Committee hardly feel at liberty 
to contend with the Council, whatever difference of opinion they 
may entertain. They place the standard of clerical morality 
very high, though not higher, they feel convinced, than the Rev- 
erend members of the Council would assume for the regulation 
of their own conduct under like circumstances, however chari- 
table may be their judgment of others, who fall below it. 

The first cause specified under this charge is that relating to 
the questions of copyright between the Pastor and Mr. W. B. 
Fowle. Upon that, as specified, the result entirely acquits Mr. 
Pierpont. But it seems that from inadvertence or misunderstand- 
ing, the whole cause of these transactions was not specified ; and 
the most important parts of the Pastor's conduct, in relation to 
them, though fully examined before the Council, are dismissed 
with the remark that " although some members of the Council 
are not prepared entirely to approve the Pastor's conduct in all 
these transactions, — yet, inasmuch, as that conduct does not bear 
upon the specification, set forth in the " Grounds of Complaint " — 
and inasmuch, also, as it involves a question of legal right to be 
determined by a higher and more competent tribunal, the Council 
do not feel called upon to express an opinion in the case.' 1 '' This 
reservation of an opinion upon such grounds, cannot but strike 
the Committee with some surprise, and the Members of the 
Council must themselves be somewhat at a loss to account for it 
when they recur to the Grounds of Complaint, containing the 
specifications, and ending with an express reservation of the 
right to prove any other facts in support of the same charges ; 
and when, by the record of their own proceedings, it will appear 
to have been decided, by a formal vote of the Council, that this 
reservation, having been assented to by Mr. Pierpont, when he 
agreed upon a Council, evidence might be offered under it of any 
facts, though not specified, tending to prove the same charges. 
And further, that upon other subjects, evidence was received of 
the acts of both parties, long after the specifications were fur- 
nished and almost down to the very day of the hearing. Now, 
whatever was proved before the Council, relating to Mr. Pier- 
pont's contracts with Mr. Fowle, and which " some members of 
the Council were not prepared entirely to approve, " was intro- 
duced under this reservation and agreement of the parties, and 
under that vote and practice of the Council, and was, therefore, 
as fit a subject for the expression of their opinions and as much a 



6 



part of the case before them, as those portions of the transactions 
which were particularly specified. It does not, therefore, appear 
to the Committee, that the Pastor, upon the finding of the Coun- 
cil, is entitled to an acquittal upon this transaction. Mr. Fowle 
long before the hearing, informed the Committee, that the speci- 
fication in question did not embrace that part of Mr. Pierpont's 
conduct, of which he most complained, but the ^Committee an- 
swered, that, it might, notwithstanding, be proved under the 
general reservation. It ought also to be remarked, that Mr. 
Pierpont's counsel did not even object to its introduction — the 
question of the right of the Society, under the reservation, to 
introduce new facts, not having then been raised. That the 
Council should after all, decline giving a formal opinion upon it, 
for the reasons stated, the Committee can not attribute to an 
unwillingness to find him guilty but to a forgetfulness of their 
own decision. It is manifest, however, that upon this part of the 
charge — by far the greater portion — Mr. Pierpont has not been, 
in fact, acquitted, and that, as far as it is incidentally expressed, 
the opinion of the Council was unfavorable to his integrity in 
the transaction. 

The next specification relates to Mr. Pierpont's contract with 
Mr. W. W. Clapp, to furnish letters for the Evening Gazette, 
while Mr. Pierpont was in Europe. Of this the Pastor is 
acquitted in general terms. The rule the Committee have pre- 
scribed to themselves, and have endeavored to observe, will not 
prevent them from relating the undisputed facts as they appeared 
in evidence, that the Society may form its own opinion of their 
character. 

In 1835, the Pastor went to Europe for his health. He had 
some conversation with Mr. Clapp, about furnishing letters for 
the Gazette. Mr. Clapp told him he could not offer him more 
than $5 a letter, which, he supposed, would not be a satisfactory 
price. But, just before his departure, he called on Mr. Clapp, 
and said that, being in want of money, he would accept Mr. 
Clapp's offer; a written agreement was made, and signed, by 
which Mr. Pierpont was to receive, in advance, $250, in Mr. 
Clapp's acceptances, for which he was to write letters from 
Europe for publication, at the price of $5 each, and if he should 
not write so many, or should return before the $250 were 
exhausted at that rate, he was to refund the money with interest. 
The acceptances were immediately furnished, and negociated by 
Mr. Pierpont, who sailed for England, travelled there, thence 
went to France, and Italy, and thence to Smyrna, Palestine and 
Constantinople. He wrote long descriptive letters, (one at least) 
to members of his family, while he was in England ; from other 
places, also, he wrote such letters to his family, and at such 
length, that several evenings were occupied in reading parts of 
them to the witnesses, and during his absence, he composed and 
communicated a long and labored poetical composition for the 



7 



Knickerbocker Magazine. But Mr. Clapp heard nothing from 
him, until three months after his departure from Boston, when 
he wrote him one letter from Rome, " a large portion of which," 
says the Result, " was published in the Evening Gazette; in this 
letter he refunded the $250, and informed Mr. Clapp, that the stay- 
he made in any one place was so short that it would be impossi- 
ble for him, in his state of health, to meet his engagement to fur- 
nish letters for publication. It appeared in evidence, that the 
Pastor was suffering from ill health at the time this letter was 
written, and that he was considered by those who then saw him, 
unequal to the task of writing much or regularly." 

Does this statement of facts, which cannot be disputed or 
materially varied, entitle Mr. Pierpont to the acquittal of the 
Council? If the damage were an applicable matter, he could not 
escape even in a court of law. Here was a contract to write for 
pay in advance. It was not optional with Mr. Pierpont to write 
or refund the money. No Lawyer or Moralist can pretend it. 
The clear legal and moral construction of the contract is, that he 
was to write if he could. If he could not, he was to refund the 
money. It was absurd to suppose that so formal a contract was 
made, and money advanced to bind Mr. Pierpont to nothing ; the 
contract was to last until his return, or until the $250 was 
exhausted at $5 a letter — there is no other limitation of it. He 
could not rescind or shorten the term of the contract at pleasure 
by returning the money. Now how did he perform it? He took 
the money, — he could have written to Mr. Clapp, from England, 
for he did write one or more letters from England to others, 
which Mr. Clapp testified he should have been glad to have pub- 
lished, and asked leave to publish as under the contract ; how 
many other letters he wrote to other persons, before he wrote to 
Mr. Clapp from Rome is unknown — we only know that during 
his absence he wrote largely, and just such letters, chiefly at 
least, as he was bound to furnish Mr. Clapp. Sick or well, sta- 
tionary or locomotive, he could write amusingly to others — to 
Mr. Clapp he wrote only to rescind the contract by returning the 
money when he found he could borrow it of another. And what 
is the justifiable cause, on which the Council have acquitted him ? 
That when that one letter was written, he was too ill to write. 
He gave another reason, that his stay in any one place was too 
short, that is, he was too much in a hurry to see something new, 
to wait a day, to keep his deliberate, written, purchased and paid 
for promise to write a letter describing what he had seen. If he 
was too ill, to write before he reached Rome, of which there was 
not the slightest evidence whatever, why did he not write to Mr. 
Clapp, when he became well enough, and staid in one place long 
enough to write these long and interesting letters to his family, 
which Mr. Hay testified he listened to with so much pleasure, 
staying several evenings, until ten o'clock, before they were fin- 



8 



ished ? And why could he furnish the Knickerbocker a labored 
poem, when he could not find time or health, to keep his con- 
tract with Mr. Clapp for a letter ? Did he find that the letters 
were contracted for at too low a rate ? the contract was of his 
own seeking. Did he hope they would be more valuable to be 
published in another form ? or did the Knickerbocker outbid Mr. 
Clapp for his time and thoughts ? The Committee ask again 
why he did not write to Mr. Clapp when he could and did write 
to others ? Did he really believe he could honorably rescind the 
contract by paying back the money, before he knew its perfor- 
mance was impracticable ? Do the Council so understand the 
morality of contracts ? They surely would not admit that the 
clerical standard is lower than the theory of the law, or the prac- 
tice of trade ; but let them ask any lawyer or merchant whether 
promises once made and paid for can be thus rescinded at the 
pleasure of one of the parties. 

The business of society could hardly get along, if when the 
day of payment came, the vender had his option of rescinding a 
contract, which had turned out disadvantageous, and if the man 
whose labor had been purchased, paid for, and depended upon, 
could thus throw down the money and absolve himself from the 
bargain. The importance of this case depends not at all upon 
the value of these letters to Mr. Clapp. The Committee are 
aware that it has been called a small affair, but it cannot be a 
small affair for a clergyman deliberately to break his engagement 
even in a matter of mint and cummin. Where the temptation is 
greater, there is certainly no better security for integrity. 

This may not be thought to have been the case of any great 
practical importance, though, it was proved to have been felt to 
be so by Mr. Clapp. But was it just ? Can it on reflection, be 
said that sickness at Rome "r even before he arrived there, was a 
justifiable excuse for his subsequent neglect, when he found the 
same cause no longer existed ? The Committee cannot take any 
view of the admitted facts in this case, that is, in their judgment, 
consistent with common honesty, much less with " that scrupu- 
lous integrity, which is necessary to the respectability and use- 
fulness of a christian minister," — and they are totally unable to 
perceive any just ground for the opinion pronounced upon it by 
the Council. 

Upon the subject of the Steel Hone, the Committee make no 
comment, because the council find only certain of the facts spe- 
cified, proved to their satisfaction. The rule the Committee 
have prescribed to themselves, does not permit them to enter into 
a controversy as to the weight of the evidence produced before 
the Council. The Society must, therefore submit to the result 
that their Pastor's integrity is not " necessarily impeached " by 
so much of this specification as could be proved to the satisfac- 
tion of the Council. 



The next charge is a " want of that scrupulous regard to truth 
which should distinguish a christian minister." In saying that 
this among the other moral charges, is not sustained, the Council 
again appear to the Committee, to have placed the standard of 
clerical morality very low. If the Council had simply said, that 
that they were not satisfied by the evidence that Mr. Pierpont 
first wrote, and then denied having written, an indecorous theat- 
rical prologue, the Committee would have felt bound to submit in 
silent wonder ; but while they state evidence that convinced every 
body else of the facts alleged, they omit to state that the Pastor 
was openly appealed to before the Council, to deny it personally, 
if the charge were not true, and that he admitted it, by suffering 
his counsel to answer for him, that " he was not a witness in the 
case" When the Council say : — " that these facts did not exhibit 
such evidence that the Pastor wrote the poem in question, as to 
authorise them, sitting in judgment on his character, to pro- 
nounce his reply to a member of the prize committee, to have 
been a denial of the authorship or an evasion of the question," — 
it is not probably what they intended to say, — for what proof 
that he wrote the poem could authorise a judgment that he had 
denied it ? But the Committee regret that the Council did not 
see occasion to inquire whether they were not authorised to do 
something more upon this evidence, when sitting in judgment in 
the claims of the Society, to be relieved from their connection 
with a Pastor, whose character was left by himself to depend on 
the technical imperfections of evidence, and his own silence, 
when publicly challenged, to deny having been guilty of a 
falsehood. 

But the judgment of the Council on the Pastor's alleged want 
of truth in the printed correspondence and protest, most surprises 
the Committee. The result admits that the language used by 
the Pastor, in those documents, would carry, to readers generally, 
a meaning different from that which he now puts upon them ; 
and they do not intimate any belief that this was not wilfully 
deceptive on his part. On this point, which depends wholly on 
the written and published documents, the Committee feel autho- 
rised to examine the conclusions of the Council more freely, 
because there can be no dispute about the facts. Passing by the 
Pastor's disingenuous form of admitting his errors in his letter of 
Sept. 20, 1833, and his subsequent disingenous denial of having 
made such an admission — passing by the material misstatements 
in his Philippic of Oct. 22, 1839, where, in answer to the charge 
of being engaged in making screws, he says that he had only 
"rendered aid by counssl or otherwise" to a brother in hat 
enterprise; when it appeared by his own witness, that he was 
personally interested in it ; and passing by the pathetic untruth 
that the enterprise was lost to the world by the death of that 
brother, when the same witness testified that it had completely 
failed long before ; passing by all these, the Committee feel it 
2 



10 



necessary to state the facts respecting the Pastor's unfounded 
assertions of a previous offer of a mutual Council by him, and its 
rejection by the Society. The charge is this. That the Pastor 
stated in his published letter of Oct. 22, 1839, that he had, in his 
unpublished letter of Oct. 7, 1839, offered the Parish a mutual 
Council, to determine whether a dissolution of the connection 
should take place. And that, in his Protest against the ex-parte 
Council, he repeated the statement, and added, with equal untruth, 
that the proposition was rejected by the Society. These were 
not immaterial or unintentional errors — they were deliberate 
misstatements, for his own vindication to the public — and for 
his own escape from the jurisdiction of the Council. 

In his letter of Oct. 20, 1839, his words are these : — "In my 
second letter, dated Oct. 7, [not then published] I demanded a 
mutual Council to try that issue, and to settle all matters in con- 
troversy between us ; appended to that letter, and offered for your 
consideration immediately afterwards, by Mr. James Boyd, at my 
request, were the preamble and votes of which the following is a 
copy." Then follows a preamble and votes of which the last is a 
proposition for a mutual Council to determine whether, and on 
what terms, a dissolution should take place. 

The words of the Protest are ; 

" The reasons for this my Eemonstrance, I request permission 
briefly to lay before you. They are these : 

First. A year ago last October at their meeting on the 7th 
of that month, I tendered to the Proprietors a mutual Council, 
whose decision should be conclusive, final and forever binding 
upon both parties, among other matters, upon these two points ; 
namely, 1st — Whether, by reason of any thing I had done, or 
left undone, in relation to the temperance cause, or any other 

Cause, THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE SOCIETY, AND MYSELF OUGHT tO 

be dissolved ; and, 2dly — if, for any cause whatever, the relation 
between the Society and myself ought to be dissolved, what were 
the terms, and conditions on which that dissolution should take 
place." In this proposal, I trust that the body that I now ad- 
dress, will see proof of a disposition on my part to put an end 
to strife — the strife then existing between the proprietors and 
myself. This proposal was rejected — the Committee to whom 
it was referred, reporting on the 14th of the same month in these 
words : — 

" To the proposition of choosing a Council we object, there be- 
ing, in our opinion, nothing for such a Council to settle. The 
Chairman of that Committee who framed and presented that re- 
port, is the Chairman of the Committee by which the churches 
here represented, have been called together ; and one other mem- 
ber of this Committee is the only surviving member of that Com- 
mittee. The disposition of the respective parties to this contro- 
versy to bring it to a prompt and equitable close, I leave to be 
inferred from this statement, which may be verified by an appeal 



n 



to the records and files of the Proprietors at whose call these 
churches have now come together. I make this statement that 
these churches may see which of the two parties was the 
first to make, and which the first to reject, the offer of a 
mutual Ecclesiastical Council to decide conclusively upon all 
matters in controversy between them." 

Long as this extract from the Pastor's Protest against the sit- 
ting of the ex-parte Council is, the Committee beg the Society 
to read it once and again, and carefully consider its meaning. 
They will perceive that it distinctly declares, as matter of fact, 
and as a reason for the ex-parte Council's refusing to act, that the 
Pastor had offered to the proprietors a mutual Council, to decide 
whether for any cause whatever, the connexion between himself 
and the Society ought to be dissolved — and that, that offer was 
rejected. Let the Society be sure that such was the Pastor's 
deliberate meaning, and that he so declared to serve his purpose 
of dissolving the ex-parte Council, — and then let them recur to 
their own records and files, where the Pastor says these things 
are to be found, and see that not one word of this is true ; that 
the proposition was never made by him, nor offered as coming 
from him, nor as suggested by him ; — that n©t one word was said 
or written by any body which indicated that he had any connex- 
ion with it ; and that what he here calls his proposition to the 
Society, but which was in truth a proposition that the Society 
should offer him a Council, never was rejected ; but that the 
report of the Committee, which proposed to reject it, was itself 
rejected ! And that the friend of Mr. Pierpont, who had offered 
the original proposition as his own, instead of then renewing it, 
substituted another, which was carried. (See note A, copy of 
Record.) 

Now, it is difficult to speak of this with that measured lan- 
guage which the occasion requires. It is plain that the assertion 
of the Pastor : " In my second letter, dated Oct. 7th, I demanded 
a mutual council to try that issue, and to settle all matters in 
controversy between us," is a literal .as well as a substantial un- 
truth. There is not one word in the letter about a council, to 
settle all [matters in controversy, but only an offer of a mutual 
Council, to settle the frivolous question, whether the difficulties 
had arisen from his exertions in the temperance cause. The let- 
ter is too long to be quoted, but it is in print and can be exam- 
ined by any one. The votes in which it was in fact proposed 
that the Society should make such an offer to the Pastor, so far from 
being " appended " to that letter, were never known, until thus 
avowed, to have been his work ; but, on the contrary, their pa- 
ternity was carefully concealed by stripping them of the Pastor's, 
and dressing them up in Mr. Boyd's hand writing; and so far 
from being " rejected" by the Society, they were abandoned by 
the mover, when there was a majority against their rejection. 

This miserable piece of juggling is paraded twice in the "Pro- 



test," as an offer of a mutual Council made by the Pastor. There- 
can be no dispute here about words or facts ; every word of this 
is either under the hand of the Pastor, and printed and published 
by himself, or it is on the records of the Society ; and nothing is 
here omitted that could qualify or explain it. If thus to use lan- 
guage, does not show a " want of that scrupulous regard for truth 
which should distinguish a christian minister," the Committee 
have heretofore very much overrated the measure of that virtue. 
In the ordinary affairs of life, in which your Committee are bet- 
ter informed, they are certain that it would be followed by dis- 
grace. Well might the Council say of it, that " it must be ad- 
mitted that the declaration does not correspond to the facts, as they 
would be received by most persons ;" but the Committee are not 
more surprised that Mr. Pierpont should be held, not to have vio- 
lated in this transaction, that "scrupulous regard for truth which 
should' distinguish a christian minister," than that a principal 
reason given for it, should be " that the Pastor has insisted upon 
the correctness of his interpretation of the word appended." That 
is, by insisting, as he did, in argument, that inasmuch as the 
votes carne after the letter, (that is in point of time,) they might 
therefore truly be said to be appended to it, because an appendix 
to a book is a thing that comes after it ! ! 

It can hardly add to the extraordinary character of these mis- 
statements of the Pastor, to notice, the assertion, that the Com- 
mittee who reported against a Council, gave as a reason for it 
"that there was nothing for such a Council to settle." There 
is a well known genus of speech, of which a suppression of the 
truth is a familiar species ; the whole reason given by the Com- 
mittee was as follows : i( to the proposition of choosing a Council 
we object, there being in our opinion nothing for such a tribunal 
to settle. Mr. Pierpont in his communication, under date of 16th 
September last, says : — It is for the Proprietors of Hollis Street 
Church, as a body, to say whether I shall any longer hold the 
place to which, as a body they long ago called me. Because it 
chose to do so, the Society, as a corporate act, asked me to come 
— when it shall choose, to night, if it choose, it will ask me to 
gc. We have in respectful terms made that request, with which 
he refuses to comply, We are, therefore, left with the only alter- 
native of giving him a dismission, &c." It was not because 
there was no matter proper for a Council to settle, but because 
the Pastor himself had settled it by his own offer to go. 

The Committee see no occasion to make any remarks upon 
that part of the result of the Council, relating to the Pastor's 
correspondence with the Society, pending this controversy. The 
tone and character of that correspondence is known to all. 
Whether it be possible that there can ever again be love and 
peace between the Society and a Pastor, who could so throw 
aside all christian kindness and all professional decorum for the 
miserable triumph of being witty and sarcastic, on so solemn an 



13 



occasion, the Society can judge better than the Council or the 
Committee. It is only material for the Committee to remark 
that the Council take away all excuse for such conduct, by find- 
ing the Pastor to have been the aggressor in this unhappy differ- 
ence. They find that with respect to the Pastor's ministerial 
conduct " there existed not unreasonable grounds of complaint," 
and " that the Pastor may justly be censured " in this particular. 
Now it cannot be denied that the controversy began by complaint 
of this censurable ministerial conduct in the Pastor; it began 
therefore in wrong on his part, and the Council have found that 
in the correspondence that ensued, on Mr. Pierpont's part there 
is " little of a christian temper or spirit," and there is " harshness, 
levity, personality, ridicule and sarcasm, at variance with chris- 
tian meekness, forbearance and charity, unbecoming a christian 
minister and calculated to bring reproach upon his office and or- 
der," and that his communications are " not conciliatory or dig- 
nified." That the Council have not found his communications 
*' vindictive," while they admit that he has treated his opponents 
— with " harshness," " personality," {> ridicule and sarcasm" — 
and that they " do not perceive any instances of intentional ir- 
reverence for the holy Scriptures," in his puns and parodies even 
upon the most awful denunciations of future retribution, though 
such "use of Scriptural language" is "painful to the feelings of 
the Council " — are niceties of construction which cannot affect 
the question before the Society. 

The Committee, however, cannot but regret that the Council 
should have taken no notice of the conduct of the Pastor, during 
the hearing before the Exparte and the Mutual Councils — of his 
disingenuousness, and his violence,— because the Committee con- 
sider it the best evidence that could have been given, of qualities 
in the Pastor which are fatal to all hopes of accommodation ; but 
as the Council have not noticed it, the Committee reserve their 
remarks upon it until they come to consider the advice with 
which the Result closes. 

After thus disposing of the specific charges, the Council in- 
quire, " whether it is not best, all things considered, that the 
Council should advise a dissolution " — a question far more im- 
portant to the Society, though as the Council observe, " of small 
moment" to the Pastor, compared with his conviction or acquit- 
tal. By stating and answering this question, the Committee are 
glad to perceive that the Council have asserted the right, so 
strenuously denied to them in argument, of deciding the general 
question of expediency ; but they regret to think that in their 
decision, they have suffered themselves to be diverted from the 
true question submitted to them, by plausible and popular pre- 
texts. The reasons they give for not being " prepared to give 
an affirmative answer " to this question, are somewhat singular. 
After declaring that neither the freedom of the pulpit, nor the 
safety of the clerical order, would be endangered by a decision 



14 



against the Pastor, on general grounds, they say that such a de* 
cision neither " is required, nor would be beneficial. It is not 
required, because it appeared in evidence, that a majority of the 
worshippers in Hollis Street Meeting House — a majority of the 
Proprietors now worshipping there, and nearly all the Church, 
are satisfied with the Pastor." These reasons will hardly bear 
examination. The parties before the Council, are the Society 
and the Pastor. The Society is a corporation, composed of the 
proprietors of pews only. Now, although the habitual worship- 
pers, not proprietors, have no rights before the Council, as they 
are not parties, yet it is not denied that when the general ques- 
tion of expediency of dissolution arises, their feelings and opin- 
ions, as part of the Christian congregation, are to be consulted, 
as evidence of that expediency. But who are these habitual 
worshippers ? — Those who filled the seats when the Pastor 
adopted that course of conduct that has driven the majority of 
the Proprietors from the pews ? or those partizans, who have 
since been brought into the Meeting House, by that very course 
of conduct, and such others as attend there only because it is the 
cheapest place they can go to ? No doubt a minister, after dri- 
ving away his congregation, may get an audience that shall be 
satisfied with him, if he will humor their fanaticism or love of 
amusement ; and if they can hear him for nothing, while the 
Proprietors pay the salary, or have their pews sold to pay it. If 
the opinions of such an audience are to avail, against the dissat- 
isfaction of those who own the Meeting House, who are parties 
to the contract of settlement, and pay the salary, the question of 
expediency is of little practical value. The minister may thus 
buy out the proprietors at a cheap rate. The Meeting House, 
and adjoining land, a very valuable estate for secular purposes, 
belongs to the corporation — the corporation consists of the pew- 
holders — the pew-holders must pay the salary, whether their con- 
science will allow them to attend meeting there or not ; and 
when they become weary of that, it must be raised by sale of the 
pews, if taxes be assessed, and if not, by sale of the Meeting 
House and land, both which, under existing circumstances, might 
doubtless be had at a great bargain — so that the minister's few 
particular friends might either buy all the pews for the taxes, 
and become, by that process, owners of the whole real estate ; or 
the minister could, for a very few years' services in preaching his 
proprietors out of doors, have it set off upon execution to him, 
and his heirs forever. 

The Committee would not be understood as meaning to cast 
any reproach upon the actual body of worshippers in Hollis 
Street Meeting House. There was no evidence before the Coun- 
cil of what manner of persons they are composed; but the Com- 
mittee protest against the principle of a refusal to dissolve a con- 
nexion between a pastor and his regular society, because the pas- 
tor has succeeded in driving them away, and filling their places 



15 



with those who happen to approve his course, however objection- 
able. Upon the same principle, if Mr. Pierpont had espoused 
Abner Kneeland's doctrines, a Council might refuse to advise a 
dissolution, because he had filled the Meeting House with Abner 
Kneeland's disciples, and they were satisfied with him. 

Secondly, the Council give as a reason, that a majority of the 
Proprietors now worshipping here, are satisfied with the Pastor ; 
but as a dissatisfied majority have almost all withdrawn, until 
they can have such a minister as they approve, this is simply 
saying that the minority are satisfied. 

The third and last reason is, that nearly all the members of 
the Church are satisfied with the Pastor. Great boast was made 
by the Pastor, of the number who have joined the church since 
this controversy arose ; and, so far, this last reason is liable to 
the same answer as the first. Besides which, how could the 
Council know whether the conduct of the Pastor has not had a 
most material influence in determining the number and character 
of his Church ? How can it have been otherwise, when the 
number and character of the dissatisfied Proprietors are consid- 
ered ? If none, or but few of those men, are now members of 
the Church, may it not, without fear of injustice, be charged upon 
the want of those Christian qualities in the Pastor, whose influ- 
ence is most effectual in leading men to the communion table ? 
But the Committee consider the whole reasoning as unsound, 
that sets up the mere will of those who happen to be the wor- 
shippers, or the Church, at the time of the hearing, against that 
of a receding majority of pew-holders. 

But again, the Council say that advice of dissolution would 
not be " beneficial " — " because they do not perceive that any 
foreign interference, the action of any power from without, can 
bring back peace, or be the means of bringing back peace to this 
divided parish. This can only be done by the voluntary action 
of the parties themselves, and to such action the Council would 
earnestly urge and exhort them." But did not the Council per- 
ceive, that this division had arisen, not from mere difference of 
opinion and feeling, but from the course pursued and persisted 
in by the Pastor, and which he declares he will still persist in, 
and which the Council themselves have strongly censured ? 

Was there any evidence whatever of any dissension growing 
out of any other cause? Could not the Council, therefore, per- 
ceive that, removing this cause might be the means of bringing 
back the peace it had disturbed? Do they think it fit to adopt 
the heated language of some of the witnesses, who declared that 
if Mr. Pierpont should die that day, the parish could never again 
be united ? The Committee can see no reasonable ground for 
such a declaration. There may be two or three of the minority, 
who never would be content with a minister who would not as- 
sist them in their course of " agitation " — but the Committee 
most solemnly affirm their belief that there is nothing to prevent 



16 



a man of purity* truth, integrity and Christian temper, from be- 
ing received as the pastor of Hollis Street Society, with almost 
unanimous consent, if the present pastor were removed. The 
Committee are yet to learn upon what sufficient evidence this 
opinion of the Council can rest, and upon what ground they 
could possibly believe that if peace could not be restored by Mr. 
Pierpont's absence, it could be hoped for, while he remains. 
Though true, it is " no foreign interference," and certainly not 
this advice of the Council, " can bring back peace to this divided 
Parish," while the Pastor remains, yet the Committee feel well 
assured, that if that interference had been applied to the removal 
of the only cause of division, it might well have been hoped that 
it would be " the means of bringing back" that peace. 

The Council, however, notwithstanding the strong dissatisfac- 
tion of a majority of the Proprietors, (now increased , as appears 
by late votes, to about two thirds of those who chose to attend 
the meetings,) and notwithstanding the grave censure of the Pas- 
tor, reluctantly extorted from themselves — the Committee could 
refer to many expressions of the Council, to show how reluctantly 
that censure was expressed — decline advising a dissolution, and 
recommend instead of it, that the parties should " compose their 
differences." The Committee cannot but feel this advice to be 
like that charity that consists in saying, " be ye fed and be ye 
clothed." If such was to be the advice of the Council, the Com- 
mittee would most respectfully, but earnestly ask, why did the 
Council think proper to preface it with such a measure of cen- 
sure of the Pastor, as must forever prevent returning confidence 
between him and his people ? Mr. Pierpont is not a young man, 
who can, at the word of the Council, put off at once his " harsh- 
ness, levity, personality, ridicule and sarcasm," towards his peo- 
ple — he cannot, at their word, learn the " Christian temper and 
spirit," in which they pronounce the most important and delibe- 
rate acts of his ministerial life, to be essentially wanting. If in 
a transaction of so grave a character, and extending over more 
than two years, his conduct has been " at variance with Christian 
meekness, forbearance and charity, unbecoming a Christian min- 
ister, and calculated to bring reproach upon his office and his 
order," could the Council, ek can the Society believe that, under 
like circumstances, his conduct would hereafter be different ? 

If the cause of complaint had been a single act of the Pastor, 
or any number of acts, not denoting a fixed disposition at vari- 
ance with the Christian virtues, it would have been well for the 
Council to advise the Society " to bury the past in forgetful ness" 
— because it might be repented of, or amended. But these are 
no accidental errors ; they are the confirmed defects of character. 
Every act of the Pastor complained of has been, and still is, de- 
fended by him, and his adherents. There has never been the 
least symptom of yielding, on their part— -nor of contrition on 
his. Instead of submitting the propriety of his course with Chris- 



17 



tian meekness to his brethren, and waiting for their judgment, 
he has arrogantly avowed and justified his proceedings, and de- 
clared that such as they have been, such they shall continue to be. 

More than five weeks have elapsed, since the Result was made 
known, yet no communication has been received from the Pastor ; 
no request for reconciliation, no promise of amendment ; stand- 
ing, as he does, under the heavy censure of the whole body of 
his associated brethren, not a step has he taken that indicates any 
change of heart or temper. What hope is there of peace with 
such a man ? Not only had his previous course and correspon- 
dence with the Society been thus censurable, but his conduct be- 
fore the Exparte Council was such as to forbid all hope of -peace, 
and to extinguish all respect for him in the minds of those who 
witnessed it. How can the Society be expected to forget his 
shuffling evasions, his excited and violent manner in addressing 
the Council, and the indecent levity of his appeals to the miscel- 
laneous audience, which called forth repeated rebukes even from 
the patience of the Council ? 

Who can forget the reproach that he cast in public upon the 
declining age of one of his Society, to whom, for obvious reasons, 
this Committee can but allude? Who can forget the inhuman 
assault he made upon another, who came at the call of the Com- 
mittee to testify against him ? Who that heard him threaten 
that bereaved father, that if he came there as a witness against 
him, he would harrow up his feelings ; and who that heard him 
follow up that threat with a cold-blooded question of griefs that 
hould have been sacred even in private, can hope that this So- 
ciety can ever again be united under him as their Pastor and 
teacher? The censures of the Council have humiliated withou- 
humbling him. He can no longer stand erect in the congregat 
tion, as a man without reproach, and he will not take that atti- 
tude that becomes a christian who has been thus rebuked. 

The Committee have considered with great attention the ad- 
monitions with which the Result closes. They desire again, in 
the name of the Society, to express their thanks for the kindness 
that prompted them, ad to assure the Council that -they will 
be gratefully remembered by the Society, as their guide in any 
connexion they may form with another pastor ; but the Commit- 
tee cannot recommend to the Society to adopt the Result of the 
Council, so far as it concerns him with whom they are now so 
unhappily connected. 

In view, therefore, of the whole matter, the Cemmittee recom- 
mend the adoption of the following votes : 

Voted, That this Society do not accept the Result of the late 
Mutual Ecclesiastical Council. 

Voted, That the Rev. Mr. Pierpont be, and he hereby is again 
earnestly requested to acquiesce in the dissolution of the connex- 
ion between himself and this Society, and thereby determine the 
unpleasant controversy now existing. 



18 



Voted, That the Clerk transmit a certified copy of the above 
votes to the Pastor. 

(Signed) JOSHUA CRANE, 

JOHN D. WILLIAMS, 
DANIEL WELD, 
WM. W. CLAPP, !> Committee. 

TIMO. TILESTON, 
RUEL BAKER, 
WARREN WHITE, 



An adjourned meeting of the Proprietors, held Sept. 20, 1841, 
it was voted 

That the Report of the Committee be accepted and that it be, 
together with the Result of the Ecclesiastical Council, placed on 
Record. 

Whole number votes 103 

Yeas 71 

Nays 32 

Voted : That the thanks of the society be given to the gentle- 
men of the Committee, for the very honorable and faithful man- 
ner in which they have conducted the cause of the society, in 
connexion with the late Ecclesiastical Council. 
A True copy from the Records. 
Attest : 

GEO. S. JACKSON, Clerk. 



IffOTE Jki 



At a meeting of the Proprietors of the Meeting House in Hollis 
Street, holden Sept. SO, 1839, Mr. J. Crane offered a Preamble con- 
cluding with the following Vote: 

" That the Rev. John Pierpont be and he is hereby respectfully 
requested to take up his connexion as Pastor of Hollis Street Soci- 
ety" — to this Mr. J. Boyd moved an amendment which did not pre- 
vail, and the vote proposed by Mr. Crane, passed 63 to 60. 

At the next meeting, Oct. 7, 1839, the letter from Mr. Pierpont of 
that date, referred to in the text, was read, and then the Record pro- 
ceeds thus : 

" After the reading of the above communication," [Mr. Pierpont's 
letter Oct. 7, 1839,] Mr, James Boyd offered the following 

PREAMBLE AND VOTES: 

" Whereas in our present controversy with our Pastor, the Rev. 
John Pierpont, we have joined issue with him, upon the essential 
question between us : he, in his last Letter to us, in effect affirming 
that Temperance is, by way of eminence, the " exciting topic," hi 3 
zeal in the cause of which, and his efforts for its advancement, con- 
stitute " the head and front, of his offending," and we, in the Pream- 
ble to our last vote upon that Letter, denying this ;— and, 

"Whereas, it is absolutely due to the character of both the parties 
to this controversy, that this issue should be settled by some common 
and competent tribunal, in presence of this christian community, a n d 
for the information and admonition of other churches, and of coming 
times, — therefore, 

" Voted, That a committee of be raised by this Society, and 

clothed with full power to agree with our Pastor, upon a mutual 
Council, before which this issue shall by them be carried, and by 
which it shall be settled. 

" Voted, That the decision of that tribunal shall be conclusive, 
final and forever binding upon both parties, upon the following 
points, namely : 

" 1. Whether, what our Pastor has affirmed, and what we have 
denied, as aforesaid, is true. 



20 



" 2. If the Pastor's course, in relation to the temperance cause 
be not, as in his Letter, he says it is, " the main spring of our move- 
ment against him." What is ? 

" 3. Whether, by reason of any thing that he has done, or left 
undone, in relation to that cause, or any other cause, ' the connexion 
between him and this Society ought to be dissolved.' — And, 

" 4. If, for any cause whatever, that connexion ought to be dis- 
solved, what are the terms and conditions upon which a dissolution 
shall take place." 

" After the above had been read to the meeting, and some remarks 
made upon it, by Mr. Boyd, it was voted to lay the same upon the ta- 
ble, until Mr. Richards Child should offer the following Preamble and 
Vote. 

[This Preamble and Vote it is unnecessary to insert, as they were 
never acted upon, except as follows — the record then proceeds:] — 

"After considerable debate, it was Voted, that a Committee of 
five be appointed to take into consideration the communication re- 
ceived this evening from the Pastor, together with the above Pream- 
ble, &c. of Messrs. Boyd and Chi id, and report at the next meeting. 
Messrs. JOSHUA CRANE, ^ 
JAMES BOYD, 

RICHARDS CHILD, ^ Committee." 
EDMUND JACKSON, | 
W. W. CLAPP, J 
Voted, That the vote passed at the last meeting, 63 to 60, be 
printed together with the Communication received from the Pastor, 
and that two copies be placed in each Pew, next Sunday. 

Voted, To adjourn until Monday evening next, at 7 o'clock. 

Adjourned. 
Attest: A. H. BEAN, Clerk. 

At the next meeting, Oct. 14, 1839, the Committee reported, re- 
L commending [after a preamble not necessary to be repeated] the fol- 

lowing votes: 

Voted, That the Rev. John Pierpont be and is hereby dismissed 
from the Pastoral care of the Society, worshipping in Hollis Street, 
and the connexion between him and this Society, is hereby dissolved. 

Voted, That, provided the Rev. John Pierpont acquiesce in the 
foregoing vote, a sum be granted him equal to his salary, up to the 
first, day of March, next, which the Standing Committee are hereby 
authorized to pay. 

Voted, That the Standing Committee and the Deacons of the 
hurch, be authorized to supply the pulpit with suitable ministers for 



23 



such time, and upon such terms as they may think proper, until oth* 
erways directed. 

Voted, That the Standing Committee be empowered to call a meet- 
ing of the Society, whenever they may think proper. 

A minority Report was also submitted by Messrs. E. Jackson and 
J. Boyd. 

No action was had on either report at that meeting, but at the 
next meeting held Nov. 11, 1839, the following is the Record. 

Adjourned Meeting, Nov. 11, 1S39. 

Called to order at half-past six o'clock, Deacon Samuel May, Mod- 
erator. After the Proceedings of the last meeting, had been read, 
Mr. Joshua Crane moved that the Report of the Committee, made at 
the last meeting be accepted. Messrs. Warren White, Richards 
Child, and James Boyd were appointed a Committee to receive, sort 
and count the ballots, and the committee subsequently reported the 
whole number of ballots to be 128 

For the acceptance of the Report, 59 ■ 

Against it, 69 

A motion having been made by Mr. Crane, that the meeting be 
dissolved it was voted 37 to 30, that the question be taken by ballot^ 
Subsequently, the motion was withdrawn. Mr. James Boyd then 
offered the following: 

Resolved, That the vote passed on the 30th September last, where- 
by the Rev. John Pierpont was requested to take up his connexion 
as Pastor of this Society, be and the same is hereby rescinded. And 
that as a Society, we do approve, and will endeavor to sustain the 
freedom and independence of the pulpit, as illustrated in his past 
ministrations. 

Voted, 27 to 24, that the vote upon the acceptance of the Report 
be taken by ballot. 

The Committee reported the whole number of ballots to be 72 
For the acceptance of the resolution, 67 
Against, 5 
Voted, On motion of Mr. J. L. Phillips, that the Moderator and 
Clerk, be a Committee to communicate to the Pastor, the proceedings 
of this meeting. 

The meeting then adjourned without day. 

Attest: AARON H. BEAN, Clerk. 



J 



HOLLIS STREET CHURCH. 



ADJOURNED MEETING. 



Monday Evening, October 14, 1839. ^1 



Deacon Samuel May, Moderator. 



THE proceedings of the last meeting having been read, the 
Committee appointed to take into consideration the Communica- 
tion last received from the Pastor, submitted their Report as fol- 
lows : — 

THE Committee appointed on the 7th instant, to 
take into consideration the Communication of the Rev. 
John Pierpont, of that date, which relates to the diffi- 
culties existing between him and this Society, have 
attended to that duty and beg leave to 

REPORT. 

That they regret exceedingly that from the stand 
he has taken, and the exertions he has made to mis- 
lead the public with regard to the cause of those diffi- 
culties, that it has become necessary to disabuse the 
public mind by stating facts, which might and would 
have been given long since were it not for a disposi- 
tion to " spare " him. 

It is well known that be was settled as our Minister 
with the understanding, as in like cases that we should 
receive his undivided attention ; having, as all will allow 
an unusually large salary, at least for those days — and 
while he confined himself to his ministerial duties it is 
believed that no fault was found ; — but when his atten- 



2 



tion was drawn from those duties by the making of 
Books, and the manufacture of Stoves, and Screivs, and 
Razor Straps — and by his entering into every excit- 
ing topic that the ingenuity of the fanatic at home, or 
the imported Mountebank could conjure up to distract 
and disturb the public mind, such as Imprisonment for 
Debt, the Militia Law, Antimasonry, Phrenology, Tem- 
perance, and last of all, and above all, the Abolition of 
Slavery, a question which threatens more than all else 
the destruction of our Glorious Union, it would be 
wonderful indeed if his people were made of such ma- 
terials as to sit quietly and tolerate such freedom. We 
believe, that if the public were to decide the question, 
it would say, at once that no man could follow all these 
occupations and attend, night and day, to all these sub- 
jects, and still be a faithful Minister of the Gospel. 

It will be recollected by those who heard him, that 
in the last sermon he delivered previous to his depart- 
ure for Europe for the restoration of his health, he ad- 
mitted that his zeal and efforts in extraneous subjects, 
had nearly cost him his life ; that he acknowledged the 
great liberality and kindness of his society in granting 
him leave of absence and raising funds for the accom- 
plishment of his object, and stated unqualifiedly, that if 
God spared his life to return, that life should be devoted 
to his people. Of the manner in which that pledge has 
been redeemed his people can be the only judges. 
But further ; as late as September of last year, in a 
communication made to a committee raised to confer 
with him upon his duties, he says, " If I have entered 
too earnestly or too exclusively into a few topics that, 
from circumstances in which in these days we are all 
called to act, have become particularly ^exciting" to 
the neglect of others equally important and more pecu- 
liarly within my own province, it cannot be to my peo- 
ple a matter of deeper regret than it is to me ; and I 
shall faithfully endeavour to recall all undue attention 
from the former topics, and confine to the latter w r hat 
they may rightfully claim." Perhaps u decency requires" 
that we should not say that this is " a vagueness that 



3 



may well serve as a model for a writer who studies 
rather to conceal, than to discover his real meaning," 
but we will say it is either meant to be ambiguous or 
he has changed his mind, — for he now says he will 
stand in a free pulpit or none. 

With regard to the published sermons to which he 
alludes, we will only say, and we say it without fear 
of contradiction, and we say it too without meaning 
to call his veracity in question, that they do not contain 
all that was delivered — nor can the public generally 
judge of the excited manner which often leads him to 
promulgate sentiments which he afterwards forgets he 
ever uttered. 

We trust that the Society in Hollis Street, as a body 
are too well known to make it necessary to vindicate 
their character against the charge of laying upon their 
Minister, without cause a " heavy weight of rebuke. " 
That he has been often admonished it is true, and by 
" individuals ," who have been even more lavish in 
their contributions for his relief than in their admoni- 
tions for his reform ; and which contributions were re- 
ceived without a wprd of complaint and without asking 
the question whether they were or were not obtained 
by, or were the fruits of ^felonious " dealing. 

To the proposition for choosing a Council we object, 
there being in our opinion nothing for such a tribunal 
to settle. Mr. Pierpont, in his communication under 
date of the 16th September last, says, — "It is for the 
Proprietors of Hollis Street Church, as a body, to say 
whether I shall, any longer, hold the place to which, 
as a body they long ago called me. Because it chose 
to do so, the Society, as a corporate act, asked me to 
come. When it shall choose, to-night if it choose — 
it will ask me to go." 

We have in respectful terms made that request, 
with which he refuses to comply. We are there- 
fore left with the only alternative, of giving him a dis- 
mission, believing it to be our imperative duty, which 
we have been told we should always do "regardless of 
consequences." The Committee, therefore, offer for 



4 

consideration, the votes which are herewith appended. 
AH which is respectfully submitted. 

JOSHUA CRANK, ) 
RICHARDS CHILD, > Committee. 
WILLIAM W. CLAPP, ) 



Voted, — That the Rev. John Pierpont, be and is hereby dis- 
missed from the Pastoral care of the Society worshipping in 
Hollis Street, and that the connexion between him and this Soci- 
ety is hereby dissolved. 

Voted, — That provided the Rev. Mr. Pierpont acquiesce in the 
foregoing vote, a sum be granted him equal to his salary up to 
the first day of March next, which the Standing Committee are 
hereby authorized to pay. 

Voted, — That the Standing Committee, and the Deacons of 
the Church be authorized to supply the Pulpit with suitable 
Ministers for such time and upon such terms as they may think 
proper until otherways directed. 

Voted, — That the Standing Committee be empowered to call 
a meeting of the Society whenever they may think proper. 



After the foregoing had been read, Mr. E. Jackson submitted 
the following Minority Report. 

The minority of the Committee, believing that 
there is but one proper course to pursue for those who wish to 
dissolve the connexion now existing between the Society and its 
Pastor, and that, that course was distinctly pointed out at the 
last meeting by the preamble and votes offered by Mr. Boyd, and 
which are now before the meeting, decline offering any counter 
report for the consideration of this meeting, but content them- 
selves with protesting as they now do, against the report of the 
majority of the Committee and the measures they recommend — 
leaving the responsibility M of any such course with those who 
may choose to take it. 

EDMUND JACKSON, 
Oct. 14, 1839. JAMES BOYD. 

After considerable debate it was 

Voted, — That the two reports presented to the meeting this 
evening be printed, and that Three copies be left in each of the 
Pews. 

Voted, — That this meeting adjourn for Four weeks from this 
evening, to meet at the usual place at 6 o'clock. 
Adjourned till Monday evening, Nov. 11th. 

Attest, AARON H. BEAN, Proprietors' Clerk. 



CJLAPP &: SON'S PRESS, 

14 CONGRESS- STREET. 



\ / 



2XJ 




T 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




0 017 759 791 0 



